Final 

Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train (HST) 

Program Environmental Impact Report/ 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) 

Volume 1: Report 

Prepared by: 

California High-Speed Rail Authority 

925 L Street, Suite 1425 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Contact: Mr. Dan Leavitt 

916/324-1541 

USDOT Federal Railroad Administration 

1200 New Jersey Avenue S.E. 

MS-20 

Washington, DC 20590 

Contact: Mr. David Valenstein 

202/493-6368 

May 2008 
 

California High-Speed Rail Authority and Federal Railroad 

Administration. 2008. Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train 

(HST) Program Environmental Impact Report/ Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIR/EIS). Final. Volume 1: Chapters. May. Sacramento, CA 

and Washington, D.C. 

The Final Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train (HST) Program Environmental Impact 

Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) is being made available to the public in accordance 

with the California Environmental Quality Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. 

Visit the California High-Speed Rail Authority Web Site (www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov), where you can: 

• View and download the Final Program EIR/EIS. 

• Request a CD-ROM of the Final Program EIR/EIS. 

• Locate a library near you to review a hardcopy of the Final Program EIR/EIS. 

Printed copies have been placed in the main public libraries in the following cities: Fremont, Gilroy, 

Livermore, Merced, Modesto, Mountain View, Oakland, Palo Alto, Pleasanton, Sacramento, San Francisco, 

San Jose, Stockton, and Tracy. 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page P-1

PREFACE 

P.1.1 What Is This Document? 

A statewide program environmental impact report/environmental impact statement (EIR/EIS) was 

certified in November 2005 as the first phase of a tiered environmental review process for the proposed 

California high-speed train (HST) system planned to provide a safe and reliable mode of travel that links 

the major metropolitan areas of the state. The California High-Speed Rail Authority (Authority), in 

cooperation with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), prepared a Draft Program EIR/EIS for the 

San Francisco Bay Area to Central Valley region, circulated it for public and agency review in 2007, and 

then completed this Final Program EIR/EIS that responds to comments received on the Draft Program 

EIR/EIS. The Program EIR/EIS considers, describes, and summarizes the environmental impacts—at a 

programmatic level of analysis—of the proposed HST system within the broad corridor between and 

including the Altamont Pass and Pacheco Pass. In this document, the Authority and the FRA have 

identified a preferred HST Network Alternative and general alignments, station locations, mitigation 

strategies, design practices, and further measures to guide the system’s development and avoid and 

minimize potential adverse environmental impacts. 

This Final Program EIR/EIS was prepared to comply with two primary environmental laws: the federal 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The 

purpose of each of these closely related laws is to help decision makers and the public to understand the 

potential impacts of a proposed action and ways to avoid those impacts. Should the proposed HST 

system be advanced in the Bay Area to Central Valley region, subsequent project-level environmental 

review would consider site-specific environmental impacts. 

P.1.1 How Do I Use This Document? 

The purpose of environmental documents prepared under NEPA and CEQA is to disclose information to 

decision makers and the public. While the science and analysis that supports this Final Program EIR/EIS 

is complex, this document is intended for the layperson. Every attempt has been made to limit technical 

terms and the use of acronyms. Where this cannot be avoided, the terms and acronyms are defined the 

first time they are used, either in the text or in footnotes. For easy reference, the most frequently used 

acronyms are provided in a foldout list at the back of this document. 

Volume I of this Final Program EIR/EIS is organized into 17 chapters and a Summary. Separate volumes 

contain appendices (Volume II) and the comments received during the public comment period for the 

2007 Draft Program EIR/EIS with responses to these comments (Volume III). For a reader with only a 

short time to devote to this document, the Summary is the place to start. It provides a summary of all 

of the substantive chapters in this document and includes a table listing the potential environmental 

impacts at the program level for each topic. If the reader begins here but wants more information, the 

Summary directs the reader where to get details elsewhere in the document. 

Chapter 1.0, Purpose and Need and Objectives, explains why the project is proposed and provides 

a history of the planning process for the HST project. Chapter 2.0, Alternatives, describes the 

proposed HST Network and Alignment Alternatives and station location options and the No Project 

Alternative, contains illustrations and maps, and also discusses alternatives that were previously analyzed 

but are no longer being considered. These first two chapters help the reader understand what is being 

analyzed in the remainder of the document. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS Preface 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page P-2

Chapter 3.0, Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

is where the reader can find information about the existing transportation, environmental, and social 

conditions in the area of the proposed project. This chapter provides the findings of the analysis of 

potential environmental impacts, along with broad methods to reduce these impacts (called mitigation 

strategies). 

Chapter 4.0, Costs and Operations, summarizes the estimated capital and operations and 

maintenance costs for each HST alignment alternative evaluated in the Program EIR/EIS. 

Chapter 5.0, Economic Growth and Related Impacts, presents an analysis of the potential growthinducing effects and related indirect impacts of the alternatives considered in the Program EIR/EIS. 

Chapter 6.0, HST Station Area Development, describes the general principles and implementation 

approaches for HST station area development. 

Chapter 7.0, High-Speed Train Network and Alignment Alternatives Comparisons, summarizes 

and compares the physical and operational characteristics and potential environmental consequences 

associated with different combinations of alignment alternatives that comprise the HST network 

alternatives, as well as differences among alignment alternatives and potential station location options. 

Chapter 8.0, Preferred HST Alignment Alternatives and Station Location Options, describes the 

Authority and FRA’s preferred HST network and alignment alternatives and station location options. This 

chapter also describes the evaluation of network alternatives that led to the identification of the preferred 

alternative.

Chapter 9.0, Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts, describes potentially significant 

adverse environmental effects, at the program level, that cannot be avoided should the proposed HST 

network alternative be implemented and any unavoidable adverse impacts of the alternatives. This 

chapter also describes significant irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources or foreclosures of 

future options. 

Chapter 10.0, Public and Agency Involvement, contains summaries of coordination and outreach 

activities, both with agencies and the general public. Chapter 11.0, Organization, Agency, and 

Business Outreach, identifies entities conferred with during preparation of the Program EIR/EIS. 

The remaining six chapters provide reference material. Chapter 12.0, List of Preparers, provides the 

names and responsibilities of the authors of the Program EIR/EIS. Chapter 13.0, Final Program 

EIR/EIS Distribution, identifies those informed of the availability of the Final Program EIR/EIS. 

Chapter 14.0, Sources Used in Document Preparation, cites the references and contacts used in 

writing this document. Chapter 15.0, Glossary, provides a definition of terms used in the Program 

EIR/EIS. Chapter 16.0, Index, is a cross-reference of the major topics used in the Program EIR/EIS. 

Finally, Chapter 17.0, Acronyms, is a foldout list of the most frequently used acronyms. 

In Volume III of the Final Program EIR/EIS, there are copies of all written and oral comments received 

during the public review period for the 2007 Draft Program EIR/EIS (July 16, 2007 to October 26, 2007). 

Each comment is assigned a unique comment number. Following each piece of correspondence, whether 

a letter, comment card, e-mail, website, or transcript of an oral comment, responses are provided for 

each comment, referenced by comment number. Where appropriate, the response indicates where to 

find more information on the topic in a standard response and/or the Final Program EIR/EIS. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS Preface 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page P-3

P.1.2 What Has Changed Since the Draft Program EIR/EIS? 

The following updates, additions, and revisions have been made since the Draft Program EIR/EIS was 

circulated in late 2007 and have been included in this Final Program EIR/EIS. 

Change Location 

Identifies the Pacheco Pass as the Preferred Alternative. • Summary 

• Chapter 2 

• Chapter 8 

Added the following sections to Summary: 

S.4 Areas of Controversy 

S.5 Avoidance and Minimization 

S.6 HST Station Area Development 

S.7 Public and Agency Involvement 

S.8 High-Speed Train Network Alternatives Evaluation 

S.9 Preferred HST Network Alternative 

S.10 HST Alignment Alternatives and Station Location Options for the 

Preferred Pacheco Pass Network Alternative 

S.11 Least Environmentally Damaging Preferred Alternative (LEDPA) 

S.12 Next Steps in the Environmental Process 

S.13 Altamont Pass Project 

• Summary 

Added or updated information in Table S.8-1, including indirect impacts for 

floodplains, streams, waterbodies, and wetlands; added fault data; updated 

airports served and cultural resources and 4(f)/6(f) information. 

• Summary 

Added information on frequency of trains (“For 139 trains over a 14-hour 

period... ”). 

• Summary 

Described comments on the alternatives, the evaluation of network alternatives, 

and the preferred alternative. 

• Summary 

• Chapter 8 

Identified and discussed the early compliance with the Clean Water Act related 

to the LEDPA. 

• Summary 

• Chapter 8 

Identified CEQA Environmentally Superior Alternative and NEPA Environmentally 

Preferable Alternative. 

• Summary 

• Chapter 8 

Added updates to Maintenance and Storage Facilities section (including no Los 

Banos facility). 

• Chapter 2 

• Chapter 8 

Updated information on the Regional Rail Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area. • Chapter 2 

• Section 3.17 

Clarified projects included in the No Project Alternative and added an appendix 

of transit projects. 

• Chapter 2 

• Appendix 2-C-1 

Included more discussion on climate change and greenhouse gases. • Section 3.3 

• Section 3.17 

Included a comparison of air quality impacts between Pacheco Pass and 

Altamont Pass network alternatives. 

• Section 3.3 

• Appendix 3.3-A 

Identified an Authority commitment to acquire easements to protect prime 

farmland. 

• Section 3.8 

Updated visual simulation along Henry Miller Road. • Section 3.9 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS Preface 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page P-4

Updated Calaveras fault information related to the Altamont Pass alternatives 

and included new figures (Figures 3.13-4b, 3.13-4c, and 3.13-7) showing faults 

in the East Bay area, Calaveras Fault Area, and the Calaveras Fault location. 

• Section 3.13 

Identified an Authority commitment to acquire agricultural, conservation, and/or 

open space easements for potential impacts in and around the Grasslands 

Ecological Area. 

• Section 3.15 

Included more information related to parks and recreation and added Figure 

3.16-1 showing publicly owned lands. 

• Section 3.15 

• Section 3.16 

Included additional information related to the Grasslands Ecological Area and 

other conservation areas and added Figure 3.15-5 showing public lands between 

San Jose and the Central Valley. 

• Section 3.15 

• Section 3.16 

Included a discussion of study areas for each cumulative impact topic and 

included a list of mitigation strategies for each cumulative impact topic area. 

• Section 3.17 

Revised text related to coupling and uncoupling (split) of trains. • Chapter 4 

Updated text to reflect that the Authority will undertake a 

comprehensive economic study for HST stations in the Central Valley to identify 

businesses/jobs that would benefit from being located near HST station areas, 

provide priority to stations where there are adopted transit-oriented 

development plans and general plans, and emphasize planning for bicycles as 

well as pedestrian traffic at and around stations 

• Chapter 6 

Identified that the Authority will utilize its resources, both financial and other, to 

provide incentives for station area planning and amending county general plans. 

• Chapter 6 

Incorporated information related to public circulation of the Draft Program 

EIR/EIS. 

• Chapter 10 

Included the Los Banos Bypass Project (SR-152) in the cumulative impact 

analysis. 

• Appendix 3.17-A 

Included the Staff Recommendation presented at the November 14, 2007 

Authority Board Meeting and the U.S. EPA concurrence letter on the LEDPA. 

• Appendix 8-A 

• Appendix 8-B 

Updated text to reflect change from draft to final. • Summary 

• Chapter 1 

• Chapter 2 

• Chapter 6 

• Chapter 8 

• Chapter 10 

• Chapter 13 

Checked use of Transbay Terminal and Transbay Transit Center • All chapters 

Revised text, tables, and figures as appropriate to incorporate comments 

received on the Draft Program EIR/EIS including federal, state, local, individual, 

public hearing, and website comments. 

• All chapters 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS Preface 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page P-5

P.1.3 What Happens Next? 

At the completion of this program environmental review process, the Authority expects to be able to 

certify the Final Program EIR/EIS and make findings for compliance with CEQA, the FRA expects to be 

able to issue a Record of Decision for compliance with NEPA, and both agencies expect to be able to 

make various determinations. Assuming a decision is made to go forward with development of the HST 

system, the Authority and FRA would focus future project analysis in the study region on alignment and 

station options selected through this program environmental review process. Site-specific location and 

design alternatives for the alignment and station options selected at the program-level, including impact 

avoidance and minimization alternatives and strategies, would be further investigated and considered 

during Tier 2, project-level environmental review. 

Preliminary engineering and project-level environmental review would commence in the study region to 

the extent needed to assess site-specific issues and potential environmental impacts not already 

addressed in this Final Program EIR/EIS. Project-level environmental review would focus on a portion or 

portions of the proposed HST system and would provide further analysis of potential impacts and 

mitigation at an appropriate site-specific level of detail to obtain needed permits and to implement HST 

projects. Also, after completing this program environmental process, the Authority would begin working 

with local governments, transportation agencies, and private parties to identify right-of-way preservation 

needs and protective advance acquisition opportunities consistent with state and federal authority and 

requirements. 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page i

CONTENTS 

Volume 1: Chapters 

Page 

SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... S-1

S.1 Introduction and Background .......................................................................... S-1

S.2 Purpose of and Need for a High-Speed Train System in California ..................... S-2

S.2-1 Purposes .......................................................................................... S-2

S.2-2 Statewide Need ................................................................................ S-3

S.2-3 Regional Need .................................................................................. S-3

S.3 Alternatives ................................................................................................... S-4

S.3-1 No Project Alternative ....................................................................... S-4

S.3-2 High-Speed Train Alignment Alternatives and Station Location 

Options ............................................................................................ S-5

S.4 Areas of Controversy .................................................................................... S-10

S.5 Avoidance and Minimization .......................................................................... S-10

S.6 HST Station Area Development ..................................................................... S-12

S.7 Public and Agency Involvement .................................................................... S-12

S.7-1 Summary of Comments on the Identification of the Preferred 

Alternative ..................................................................................... S-12

S.8 High-Speed Train Network Alternatives Evaluation ......................................... S-15

S.8-1 Comparison of Pacheco Pass and Altamont Pass Alternatives ............ S-16

S.10 HST Alignment Alternatives and Station Location Options for the Preferred 

Pacheco Pass Network Alternative ................................................................. S-21

S.10-1 San Francisco to San Jose: Caltrain Corridor (Shared Use) ............... S-21

S.11 Least Environmentally Damaging Preferred Alternative (LEDPA) ...................... S-22

S.12 Next Steps in the Environmental Process ....................................................... S-23

S.13 Altamont Pass Project ................................................................................... S-23

1 PURPOSE AND NEED AND OBJECTIVES ...................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Purpose of and Need for High-Speed Train System .......................................... 1-4

1.2.1 Purpose of High-Speed Train System ................................................. 1-4

1.2.2 Statewide and Regional Need for High-Speed Train System ................ 1-5

2 ALTERNATIVES ......................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Summary of Alternatives................................................................................. 2-1

2.1.1 No Project Alternative ....................................................................... 2-2
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS Chapters Contents 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page ii

2.1.2 High-Speed Train Network and Alignment Alternatives ........................ 2-2

2.2 Chapter Organization ..................................................................................... 2-2

2.3 Development of Alternatives ........................................................................... 2-2

2.3.1 Background ...................................................................................... 2-2

2.3.2 Statewide Program EIR/EIS ............................................................... 2-5

2.3.3 Formulation of Alternatives for the Bay Area to Central Valley 

Region ........................................................................................... 2-10

2.4 No Project Alternative ................................................................................... 2-19

2.4.1 Highway Element ........................................................................... 2-20

2.4.2 Aviation Element ............................................................................ 2-20

2.4.3 Conventional Passenger Rail and Bay Area Transit Elements ............. 2-22

2.5 High-Speed Train Alternatives ....................................................................... 2-22

2.5.1 HST Alignment Alternatives and Station Location Options ................. 2-27

2.5.2 Alignment Alternatives and Station Locations Considered and 

Rejected ........................................................................................ 2-42

2.5.3 Maintenance and Storage Facilities .................................................. 2-45

3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES, AND MITIGATION 

STRATEGIES ............................................................................................................. 3-1

3.0 Introduction ................................................................................................ 3.0-1

3.0.1 Purpose and Content of This Chapter .............................................. 3.0-1

3.0.2 Organization of This Chapter .......................................................... 3.0-2

3.1 Traffic, Transit, Circulation, and Parking ....................................................... 3.1-1

3.1.1 Regulatory Requirements and Methods of Evaluation ....................... 3.1-1

3.1.2 Affected Environment .................................................................... 3.1-5

3.1.3 Environmental Consequences ........................................................3.1-23

3.1.4 Role of Design Practices in Avoiding and Minimizing Effects ............3.1-37

3.1.5 Mitigation Strategies and CEQA Significance Effects ........................3.1-37

3.1.6 Subsequent Analysis .....................................................................3.1-39

3.2 Travel Conditions ........................................................................................ 3.2-1

3.2.1 Methods of Evaluation ................................................................... 3.2-1

3.2.2 Affected Environment .................................................................... 3.2-4

3.2.3 Environmental Consequences ......................................................... 3.2-6

3.2.4 High-Speed Train Network Alternatives and Station Location 

Options Comparison .....................................................................3.2-31

3.3 Air Quality and Global Climate Change .......................................................... 3.3-1

3.3.1 Regulatory Requirements and Methods of Evaluation ....................... 3.3-1

3.3.2 Affected Environment ...................................................................3.3-12

3.3.3 Environmental Consequences ........................................................3.3-15

3.3.4 Design Practices ...........................................................................3.3-27
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS Chapters Contents 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page iii

3.3.5 Mitigation Strategies and CEQA Significance Conclusions ................3.3-28

3.3.6 Subsequent Analysis .....................................................................3.3-29

3.4 Noise and Vibration ..................................................................................... 3.4-1

3.4.1 Regulatory Requirements and Methods of Evaluation ....................... 3.4-1

3.4.2 Affected Environment .................................................................... 3.4-8

3.4.3 Environmental Consequences ........................................................3.4-12

3.4.4 Role of Design Practices in Avoiding and Minimizing Effects ............3.4-21

3.4.5 Mitigation Strategies and CEQA Significance Conclusions ................3.4-22

3.4.6 Subsequent Analysis .....................................................................3.4-26

3.5 Energy ....................................................................................................... 3.5-1

3.5.1 Regulatory Requirements and Methods of Evaluation ....................... 3.5-1

3.5.2 Affected Environment .................................................................... 3.5-5

3.5.3 Environmental Consequences ........................................................3.5-11

3.5.4 Role of Design Practices in Avoiding and Minimizing Effects ............3.5-17

3.5.5 Mitigation Strategies and CEQA Significance Conclusions ................3.5-17

3.5.6 Subsequent Analysis .....................................................................3.5-18

3.6 Electromagnetic Fields and Electromagnetic Interference ............................... 3.6-1

3.6.1 Regulatory Requirements ............................................................... 3.6-1

3.6.2 Characteristics of Electromagnetic Fields ......................................... 3.6-1

3.6.3 Environmental Consequences: Past Findings .................................. 3.6-2

3.6.4 Design Practices ............................................................................ 3.6-4

3.6.5 Mitigation Strategies and CEQA Significance Conclusions ................. 3.6-4

3.6.6 Subsequent Analysis ...................................................................... 3.6-5

3.7 Land Use and Planning, Communities and Neighborhoods, Property, and 

Environmental Justice .................................................................................. 3.7-1

3.7.1 Regulatory Requirements and Methods of Evaluation ....................... 3.7-1

3.7.2 Affected Environment .................................................................... 3.7-5

3.7.3 Environmental Consequences ........................................................3.7-19

3.7.4 Role of Design Practices in Avoiding and Minimizing Effects ............3.7-41

3.7.5 Mitigation Strategies and CEQA Significance Conclusions ................3.7-42

3.7.6 Subsequent Analysis .....................................................................3.7-44

3.8 Agricultural Lands ....................................................................................... 3.8-1

3.8.1 Regulatory Requirements and Methods of Evaluation ....................... 3.8-1

3.8.2 Affected Environment .................................................................... 3.8-4

3.8.3 Environmental Consequences ......................................................... 3.8-5

3.8.4 Role of Design Practices in Avoiding and Minimizing Effects ............3.8-11

3.8.5 Mitigation Strategies and CEQA Significance Conclusions ................3.8-11

3.8.6 Subsequent Analysis .....................................................................3.8-13
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS Chapters Contents 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page iv

3.9 Aesthetics and Visual Resources ................................................................... 3.9-1

3.9.1 Regulatory Requirements and Methods of Evaluation ....................... 3.9-1

3.9.2 Affected Environment .................................................................... 3.9-2

3.9.3 Environmental Consequences ......................................................... 3.9-6

3.9.4 Photo Simulations of Alternatives in Selected Scenic Areas ..............3.9-36

3.9.5 Design Practices ...........................................................................3.9-36

3.9.6 CEQA Significance Conclusions and Mitigation Strategies ................3.9-37

3.9.7 Subsequent Analysis .....................................................................3.9-38

3.10 Public Utilities ............................................................................................3.10-1

3.10.1 Regulatory Requirements and Methods of Evaluation ......................3.10-1

3.10.2 Affected Environment ...................................................................3.10-4

3.10.3 Environmental Consequences ........................................................3.10-5

3.10.4 Role of Design Practices in Avoiding and Minimizing Effects .......... 3.10-10

3.10.5 Mitigation Strategies and CEQA Significance Conclusions .............. 3.10-10

3.10.6 Subsequent Analysis ................................................................... 3.10-11

3.11 Hazardous Materials and Wastes .................................................................3.11-1

3.11.1 Regulatory Requirements and Methods of Evaluation ......................3.11-1

3.11.2 Affected Environment ...................................................................3.11-6

3.11.3 Environmental Consequences ........................................................3.11-8

3.11.4 Role of Design Practices in Avoiding and Minimizing Effects .......... 3.11-15

3.11.5 Mitigation Strategies and CEQA Significance Conclusions .............. 3.11-15

3.11.6 Subsequent Analysis ................................................................... 3.11-17

3.12 Cultural Resources and Paleontological Resources ........................................3.12-1

3.12.1 Regulatory Requirements and Methods of Evaluation ......................3.12-1

3.12.2 Affected Environment ...................................................................3.12-6

3.12.3 Environmental Consequences ...................................................... 3.12-11

3.12.4 Conclusion ................................................................................. 3.12-25

3.12.5 Design Practices ......................................................................... 3.12-25

3.12.6 Mitigation Strategies and CEQA Significance Conclusions .............. 3.12-25

3.12.7 Subsequent Analysis ................................................................... 3.12-29

3.13 Geology and Soils.......................................................................................3.13-1

3.13.1 Regulatory Requirements and Methods of Evaluation ......................3.13-1

3.13.2 Affected Environment ...................................................................3.13-5

3.13.3 Environmental Consequences ........................................................3.13-8

3.13.4 Role of Design Practices in Avoiding and Minimizing Effects .......... 3.13-20

3.13.5 Mitigation Strategies and CEQA Significance Conclusions .............. 3.13-21

3.14 Hydrology and Water Resources .................................................................3.14-1

3.14.1 Regulatory Requirements and Methods of Evaluation ......................3.14-1

3.14.2 Affected Environment ...................................................................3.14-6
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS Chapters Contents 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page v

3.14.3 Environmental Consequences ...................................................... 3.14-13

3.14.4 Role of Design Practices in Avoiding and Minimizing Effects .......... 3.14-49

3.14.5 Mitigation Strategies and CEQA Significance Conclusions .............. 3.14-49

3.15 Biological Resources and Wetlands ..............................................................3.15-1

3.15.1 Regulatory Requirements and Methods of Evaluation ......................3.15-1

3.15.2 Affected Environment ................................................................. 3.15-12

3.15.3 Environmental Consequences ...................................................... 3.15-25

3.15.4 Role of Design Practices in Avoiding and Minimizing Effects .......... 3.15-65

3.15.5 Mitigation Strategies and CEQA Significance Conclusions .............. 3.15-65

3.16 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources (Public Parks and Recreation) ......................3.16-1

3.16.1 Regulatory Requirements and Methods of Evaluation ......................3.16-1

3.16.2 Affected Environment ...................................................................3.16-3

3.16.3 Environmental Consequences ........................................................3.16-5

3.16.4 Impact Avoidance Strategies, Including Alternatives Screened 

from Further Consideration ......................................................... 3.16-18

3.16.5 Avoidance Alternatives or Reasons for No Prudent or Feasible 

Alternative for Use of Section 4(f) or 6(f) Resource ...................... 3.16-18

3.16.6 Mitigation Strategies and CEQA Significance Conclusions .............. 3.16-19

3.16.7 Subsequent Analysis ................................................................... 3.16-20

3.17 Cumulative Analysis ...................................................................................3.17-1

3.17.1 Purpose and Content of This Section .............................................3.17-1

3.17.2 Regulatory Requirements and Methods of Evaluation ......................3.17-1

3.17.3 Cumulative Projects and Growth Forecasts .....................................3.17-3

3.17.4 Analysis of Cumulative Impacts ................................................... 3.17-12

3.17.5 Mitigation Strategies ................................................................... 3.17-27

3.18 Construction Methods and Impacts .............................................................3.18-1

3.18.1 Construction Method Approach ......................................................3.18-1

3.18.2 Planned Highway Improvements ...................................................3.18-1

3.18.3 Highway Improvement Process .....................................................3.18-2

3.18.4 High-Speed Train Alignment Alternatives .......................................3.18-4

3.18.5 High-Speed Train Stations/Facilities ............................................. 3.18-10

4 COSTS AND OPERATIONS ......................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 4-1 

4.2 Capital Costs .................................................................................................. 4-1

4.3 Operations and Maintenance Costs ................................................................ 4-19
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS Chapters Contents 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page vi

5 ECONOMIC GROWTH AND RELATED IMPACTS ........................................................... 5-1

5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 5-1

5.2 Affected Environment ..................................................................................... 5-1

5.2.1 Existing Conditions ........................................................................... 5-1

5.2.2 Study Area and Alternatives .............................................................. 5-3

5.2.3 Analysis Years .................................................................................. 5-4

5.3 Potential Growth-Inducing Effects ................................................................... 5-4

5.3.1 Methodology and Data Sources ......................................................... 5-4

5.3.2 Financing of Alternatives ................................................................... 5-7

5.3.3 Statewide Comparison of Alternatives ................................................ 5-7

5.3.4 Detail for No Project Alternative ...................................................... 5-12

5.3.5 Detail for HST Network Alternatives ................................................. 5-13

5.3.6 Study Area Effects .......................................................................... 5-13

5.3.7 Summary of Effects ........................................................................ 5-16

5.4 Potential Indirect Impacts of Induced Growth ................................................ 5-18

5.4.1 Transportation ............................................................................... 5-18

5.4.2 Air Quality ...................................................................................... 5-19

5.4.3 Noise and Vibration ........................................................................ 5-19

5.4.4 Energy ........................................................................................... 5-19

5.4.5 Electromagnetic Frequency and Electromagnetic Interference ........... 5-20

5.4.6 Land Use, Communities and Neighborhoods, Property, and 

Environmental Justice ..................................................................... 5-20

5.4.7 Farmland and Agriculture ................................................................ 5-22

5.4.8 Aesthetics and Visual Resources ...................................................... 5-25

5.4.9 Utilities and Public Services ............................................................. 5-25

5.4.10 Hazardous Materials and Wastes ..................................................... 5-26

5.4.11 Cultural and Paleontological Resources ............................................ 5-26

5.4.12 Geology and Soils ........................................................................... 5-26

5.4.13 Hydrology and Water Resources ...................................................... 5-26

5.4.14 Biological Resources ....................................................................... 5-27

5.4.15 Wetlands ....................................................................................... 5-28

5.4.16 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources (Public Parks and Recreation)........... 5-29

5.5 Growth Inducement and Secondary Impact Differences among HST 

Alignment Alternatives and Station Location Options ...................................... 5-30

5.6 Managing Growth-Inducing and Indirect Effects ............................................. 5-31
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS Chapters Contents 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page vii

6 HST STATION AREA DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................... 6-1

6.1 General Principles for HST Station Area Development ....................................... 6-1

6.2 Implementation of HST Station Area Development Guidelines ........................... 6-2

6.2.1 Select Station Locations that Are Multi-Modal Transportation Hubs, 

Preferably in Traditional City Centers. ................................................ 6-2

6.2.2 Adopt HST Station Area Development Policies that Require TOD, 

and Promote Value-Capture at and around Stations as a Condition 

for Selecting a HST Station Site. ........................................................ 6-3

6.2.3 Provide Incentives for Local Governments in which Potential HST 

Stations Would Be Located to Prepare and Adopt Station Area 

Plans, Amend City and County General Plans, and Encourage TOD 

in the Vicinity of HST Stations ........................................................... 6-4

7 High-Speed Train Network and Alignment Alternatives Comparisons ............................. 7-1

7.1 Introduction ....................................................................................... 7-1

7.1.1 Purpose and Content of This Chapter ....................................... 7-1

7.1.2 Organization of This Chapter ................................................... 7-1

7.2 Network Alternatives ........................................................................... 7-3

7.2.1 Altamont Pass Alternatives ...................................................... 7-4

7.2.2 Pacheco Pass Alternatives ..................................................... 7-48

7.2.3 Pacheco Pass with Altamont Pass (local service) ..................... 7-71

7.3 Alignment Alternatives ...................................................................... 7-89

7.3.1 Bay Area to Central Valley Station Options ............................ 7-140

8 PREFERRED HST ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES AND STATION LOCATION OPTIONS ...... 8-1

8.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 8-1

8.2 Summary of Comments on the Identification of the Preferred Alternative .......... 8-3

8.2.1 Pacheco ........................................................................................... 8-3

8.2.2 Altamont .......................................................................................... 8-4

8.2.3 Combined Pacheco and Altamont ...................................................... 8-5

8.3 Network Alternatives Evaluation ...................................................................... 8-6

8.3.1 Pacheco Pass Network Alternatives Evaluation.................................... 8-7

8.3.2 Altamont Pass Network Alternatives Evaluation .................................. 8-9

8.3.3 Pacheco Pass with Altamont Pass (Local Service) Network 

Alternatives Evaluation.................................................................... 8-11

8.3.4 Comparison of Pacheco Pass and Altamont Pass Alternatives ............ 8-12
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS Chapters Contents 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page viii

8.4 The MTC’s “Regional Rail Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area” ....................... 8-14

8.5 Preferred HST Network Alternative ................................................................ 8-15

8.6 Preferred HST Alignment Alternatives and Station Location Options for the 

Preferred Pacheco Pass Network Alternative .................................................. 8-17

8.6.1 San Francisco to San Jose ............................................................... 8-17

8.6.2 San Jose to Central Valley: Pacheco Pass ........................................ 8-19

8.6.3 Central Valley ................................................................................. 8-21

8.6.4 Maintenance Facilities ..................................................................... 8-22

8.6.5 San Francisco Bay Crossings ........................................................... 8-23

8.7 Altamont Pass Project ................................................................................... 8-24

9 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ................................................. 9-1

9.1 Potentially Adverse Unavoidable Significant Impacts ......................................... 9-1

9.1.1 Fuel Consumption and Energy Use .................................................... 9-1

9.1.2 Biological Resources and Wetlands, Agricultural Land, Section 4(f) 

and 6(f) Resources, Cultural and Paleontological Resources, and 

Visual Resources .............................................................................. 9-1

9.1.3 Construction Impacts ........................................................................ 9-2

9.2 Relationship Between Short-Term Uses of Environment and Enhancement of 

Long-Term Productivity .................................................................................. 9-2

9.3 California Environmental Quality Act Significance ............................................. 9-3

9.3.1 California Environmental Quality Act Significance Thresholds ............... 9-3

9.3.2 Potentially Significant and Unavoidable Adverse Impacts .................... 9-4

9.3.3 California Environmental Quality Act Environmentally Superior 

Alternative ....................................................................................... 9-5

10 PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT ....................................................................... 10-1

10.1 Public Involvement and Outreach before Draft Program EIR/EIS Release ........ 10-1

10.1.1 Public Information .......................................................................... 10-1

10.1.2 Public Meetings .............................................................................. 10-2

10.1.3 Notification of Scoping Meetings ...................................................... 10-4

10.2 Agency Consultation before Draft Program EIR/EIS Release ........................... 10-5

10.2.1 Agency Scoping .............................................................................. 10-5

10.2.2 Interagency Consultation ................................................................ 10-6

10.2.3 Other Agency Consultation .............................................................. 10-6

10.3 Scoping Summary ........................................................................................ 10-6

10.4 Notification and Circulation of the Draft Program EIR/EIS ............................... 10-7

10.4.1 Public Hearings .............................................................................. 10-8

10.4.2 Summary of Comments .................................................................10-10

10.4.3 Responses to Comments Received and the Final Program EIR/EIS ...10-14

10.4.4 Additional Agency Consultation and Outreach Activities ....................10-15
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS Chapters Contents 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page ix

11 ORGANIZATION, AGENCY, AND BUSINESS OUTREACH BEFORE DRAFT PROGRAM 

EIR/EIS RELEASE .................................................................................................... 11-1 

12 LIST OF PREPARERS ............................................................................................... 12-1 

12.1 California High Speed Rail Authority .............................................................. 12-1 

12.2 Federal Railroad Administration ..................................................................... 12-1 

12.3 List of Consultants ........................................................................................ 12-1 

13 DRAFT PROGRAM EIR/EIS DISTRIBUTION ............................................................... 13-1 

13.1 Repository Locations .................................................................................... 13-1 

13.2 Federal Agencies .......................................................................................... 13-2 

13.3 State Agencies ............................................................................................. 13-3 

13.4 Elected Officials ........................................................................................... 13-4 

13.4.1 Federal Elected Officials .................................................................. 13-4 

13.4.2 State Elected Officials ..................................................................... 13-4 

13.5 Regional/Local Agencies ............................................................................... 13-6 

13.6 Organizations and Businesses ....................................................................... 13-6 

13.7 Native American Contacts ............................................................................. 13-7 

14 SOURCES USED IN DOCUMENT PREPARATION ......................................................... 14-1

14.1 Summary ..................................................................................................... 14-1

14.2 Chapter 1 Purpose and Need and Objectives ................................................ 14-1

14.3 Chapter 2 Alternatives ................................................................................. 14-2

14.4 Chapter 3 Affected Environment .................................................................. 14-3

14.4.1 Section 3.1 Traffic, Transit, Circulation, and Parking ........................ 14-3

14.4.2 Section 3.2 Travel Conditions ......................................................... 14-3

14.4.3 Section 3.3 Air Quality ................................................................... 14-4

14.4.4 Section 3.4 Noise and Vibration ...................................................... 14-5

14.4.5 Section 3.5 Energy ........................................................................ 14-6

14.4.6 Section 3.6 Electromagnetic Fields and Electromagnetic 

Interference ................................................................................... 14-8

14.4.7 Section 3.7 Land Use and Planning, Communities and 

Neighborhoods, Property, and Environmental Justice ........................ 14-8

14.4.8 Section 3.8 Agricultural Lands ........................................................ 14-9

14.4.9 Section 3.11 Hazardous Materials and Wastes ................................. 14-9

14.4.10 Section 3.12 Cultural Resources and Paleontological Resources .......14-10

14.4.11 Section 3.13 Geology and Soils ......................................................14-11

14.4.12 Section 3.14 Hydrology and Water Resources ................................14-11

14.4.13 Section 3.15 Biological Resources and Wetlands .............................14-12

14.4.14 Section 3.16 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources (Public Parks and 

Recreation) ...................................................................................14-13
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS Chapters Contents 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page x

14.4.15 Section 3.17 Cumulative Analysis ...................................................14-13

14.5 Chapter 4 Costs and Operations ..................................................................14-15

14.6 Chapter 5 Economic Growth and Related Impacts ........................................14-15

14.7 Chapter 6 HST Station Area Development ...................................................14-16

14.8 Chapter 7 High-Speed Train Network and Alignment Alternatives 

Comparisons ...............................................................................................14-16

14.9 Chapter 8 Preferred HST Alignment and Station Location Options .................14-16

14.10 Chapter 9 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts ...............................14-16

14.11 Chapter 10 Public and Agency Involvement .................................................14-16

15 GLOSSARY .............................................................................................................. 15-1 

16 INDEX .................................................................................................................... 16-1 

17 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................... 17-1 

APPENDICES 

2-A Detailed Description of Highway Element of No Project Alternative 

2-B Detailed Description of Aviation Element of No Project Alternative 

2-C-1 No Project Alternative Projects Funded for Transit in the Bay Area 

2-C-2 No Project Alternative Projects Funded for Intercity and Freight Rail in the 

State of California 

2-D Plans and Profiles 

2E Cross Sections 

2F Station Fact Sheets 

2-G Alignment Alternatives and Station Location Options Eliminated from 

Further Consideration 

3.1-A Street Location Maps 

3.3-A 2030 No Build Scenario VMT and VHT 

3.4-A Noise and Vibration Impacts Data Table for Alignment Alternatives and 

Station Location Option Comparisons 

3.7-A Land Use and Planning Data Table for Alignment Alternatives and Station 

Location Option Comparisons 

3.8-A Farmland Data Table for Alignment Alternatives and Station Location 

Option Comparisons 

3.9-A Visual Impacts Data Table for Alignment Alternatives and Station Location 

Option Comparisons 

3.10-A Regional Utility Providers 

3.10-B Public Utilities Data Table for Alignment Alternatives and Station Location 

Option Comparisons 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS Chapters Contents 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page xi

3.11-A Hazardous Materials/Waste Sites Data Table for Alignment Alternatives 

and Station Location Option Comparisons 

3.12-A Cultural Resources Data Table for Alignment Alternatives and Station 

Location Option Comparisons 

3.13-A Geology and Soils Data Table for Alignment Alternatives and Station 

Location Option Comparisons 

3.14-A-1 Direct Water Resource Impacts Data Table for Alignment Alternatives and 

Station Location Option Comparisons 

3.14-A-2 Indirect Water Resource Impacts Data Table for 

Alignment Alternatives and Station Location Option Comparisons 

3.14-A-3 Direct Groundwater Data Table for Alignment Alternatives and Station 

Location Option Comparisons 

3.14-A-4 Indirect Groundwater Data Table for Alignment Alternatives and Station 

Location Option Comparisons 

3.14-A-5 303(d) Impaired Water Resources Impact Data Table for Alignment 

Alternatives and Station Location Option Comparisons 

3.14-B Regional Water Quality Control Boards and Local Permitting 

Agencies/Water Districts 

3.15-A-1 Special-Status Plant Species with Potential to Occur in High Speed Train 

Corridors 

3.15-A-2 Associations for Plant Special-Status Species in the San Francisco to San 

Jose Corridor per Alignment Alternative 

3.15-A-3 Associations for Plant Covered Species in the Oakland to San Jose 

Corridor per Alignment Alternative 

3.15-A-4 Associations for Plant Special-Status Species in the San Jose to Central 

Valley Corridor per Alignment Alternative 

3.15-A-5 Associations for Special-Status Plant Species in the East Bay to Central 

Valley Corridor per Alignment Alternative 

3.15-A-6 Associations for Covered Plant Species in the Central Valley Corridor per 

Alignment Alternative 

3.15-A-7 Special-Status Wildlife Species with Potential to Occur in High-Speed 

Train Corridors 

3.15-A-8 Associations for Covered Wildlife Species in the San Francisco to San Jose 

Corridor per Alignment Alternative 

3.15-A-9 Associations for Covered Wildlife Species in the Oakland to San Jose 

Corridor per Alignment Alternative 

3.15-A-10 Associations for Covered Wildlife Species in the San Jose to Central Valley 

Corridor per Alignment Alternative 

3.15-A-11 Associations for Covered Wildlife Species in the East Bay to Central Valley 

Corridor per Alignment Alternative 

3.15-A-12 Associations for Covered Wildlife Species in the Central Valley Corridor 

per Alignment Alternative 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS Chapters Contents 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page xii

3.16-A Section 4(f) + 6(f) Data Table for Alignment Alternatives and Station 

Location Option Comparisons 

3.17-A Cumulative Analysis 

4-A Capital Cost: Unit Cost Table 

4-B Conceptual Construction Cost Estimate: Station Location 

4-C Capital Cost: Network Alternatives 

4-D Capital Cost: Definition of Cost Elements 

4-E Capital Cost: Station-to-Station Travel Times 

8-A Staff Recommendations: Preferred Network Alternative, HST Alignment 

and Station Locations (November 14, 2007) 

8-B U.S. Enivornmental Protection Agency’s Concurrence on the Least 

Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS Contents 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page xiii

Tables Page 

S.3-1 Alignment Alternatives and Potential Station Location Options ................................ S-7 

S.8-1 Summary of Characteristics and Impacts for the Network Alternatives ....... follows S-16 

1.2-1 Travel Growth in 20 Years for Intercity Highways................................................ 1-7

1.2-2 Intercity Air Travel between Southern California and San Francisco Bay Area 

(Annual Enplanements) ..................................................................................... 1-7

1.2-3 Estimated Total Travel Times (Door to Door) between City Pairs by Auto, Air, 

and Rail Peak Conditions ................................................................................... 1-9

1.2-4 State of California Vehicular Accident Statistics ................................................. 1-11

1.2-5 National Vehicular Crash Statistics ................................................................... 1-11

1.2-6 National Transportation Fatalities by Mode ....................................................... 1-12

2.3-1 Optimal Express Travel Times (220 mph [350 kph]) ............................................ 2-6

2.3-2 HST Performance Criteria .................................................................................. 2-8

2.3-3 2030 Ridership Forecasts................................................................................. 2-12

2.4-1 Existing California Intercity Highway System ..................................................... 2-20

2.4-2 Assumed Total Programmed, Funded, and Operational Airport Improvementsa

 ... 2-21

2.4-3 Assumed Programmed, Funded, and Operational Improvements Adjusted for 

Trips inside California* .................................................................................... 2-22

2.5-1 Summary of Representative High-Speed Train Network Alternatives ................. 2-23

2.5-2 High-Speed Rail Alignment and Station Evaluation Objectives and Criteria .......... 2-28

2.5-3 Summary of Alignment Alternatives and Station Location Options ..................... 2-30

2.5-4 Bay Area to Merced: High-Speed Train Alignment Alternatives and Station 

Location Options Considered and Eliminated ..................................................... 2-43

3.1-1 Level of Service and Volume-to-Capacity Ratio Definition ................................. 3.1-4

3.1-2 Impacts to 2030 Peak-Hour Traffic on Intercity Freeways from Diversion to 

HST .............................................................................................................. 3.1-7

3.1-3 Impacts to Traffic, Transit, and Parking from HST Station Location Options ....... 3.1-9

3.1-4 Connecting Transit Service at HST Station Location Options ............................3.1-12

3.2-1 Relation of Travel Factors and Purpose and Need/Objectives ............................ 3.2-3

3.2-2 Application of Transportation Factors to Alternatives ........................................ 3.2-4

3.2-3 California Airport National Rankings (2002) ..................................................... 3.2-5

3.2-4 Existing Conditions Compared to No Project Alternative .................................... 3.2-7

3.2-5 Total Door-to-Door Peak Automobile Travel Times (Hours:Minutes) .................. 3.2-9

3.2-6 Total Door-to-Door Peak Air Travel Time (Hours:Minutes) ...............................3.2-10

3.2-7 Total Door-to-Door Peak HST Mode Travel Times (Hours:Minutes) ...................3.2-12

3.2-8 Modal Reliability ............................................................................................3.2-14
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS Contents 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page xiv

3.2-9 Reliability Statistics for Air Travel in California .................................................3.2-17

3.2-10 Safety Performance by Mode .........................................................................3.2-22

3.2-11 2005 Intercity Trip Summarya

 .......................................................................3.2-23

3.2-12 2030 Intercity Trip Summary for the Base Case Scenario ...............................3.2-25

3.2-13 2030 Intercity Trip Summary Sensitivity Analysis Scenario (High-End) .............3.2-25

3.2-14 2005 Average Air Frequencies (Flights per Day) by Airport Pair (Each 

Direction)a,b ..................................................................................................3.2-27

3.2-15 2030 High-Speed Train Frequencies (Trains per Day) by Station Pair (Each 

Direction) ......................................................................................... follows 3.2-28 

3.2-16 Auto Ownership and Operating Costs by Category (in 2005 Dollars) .................3.2-29

3.2-17 One-Way Door-to-Door Trip Automobile Costs (in 2005 Dollars),

......................3.2-29

3.2-18 Average Air One-Way Door-to-Door Trip Passenger Costs (in 2005 Dollars) .....3.2-30

3.2-19 High-Speed Train One-Way Door-to-Door Trip Passenger Costs (in 2005 

Dollars)a

 .......................................................................................................3.2-31

3.3-1 State and National Ambient Air Quality Standards ............................................ 3.3-6

3.3-2 Threshold Values Used to Determine Impact Significance ................................3.3-11

3.3-3 Attainment Status of Affected Air Basins .........................................................3.3-14

3.3-4 On-Road Mobile Source Regional Emissions Analysis—No Project Alternative 

and Pacheco Alignment Alternative ................................................................3.3-18

3.3-5 Airplane Emission Burdens—No Project Alternative and Pacheco Alignment 

Alternative ....................................................................................................3.3-19

3.3-6 Electrical Power Station Emissions—No Project Alternative and Pacheco 

Alignment Alternative ....................................................................................3.3-20

3.3-7 Potential Impacts on Air Quality Statewide—Existing, No Project, and Pacheco 

Alignment Alternative ....................................................................................3.3-21

3.3-8 On-Road Mobile Source Regional Emissions Analysis—No Project Alternative 

and Altamont Alignment Alternative ...............................................................3.3-23

3.3-9 Airplane Emission Burdens—No Project Alternative and Altamont Alignment 

Alternative ....................................................................................................3.3-24

3.3-10 Electrical Power Station Emissions—No Project Alternative and Altamont 

Alignment Alternative ....................................................................................3.3-25

3.3-11 Potential Impacts on Air Quality Statewide—Existing, No Project, and 

Altamont Alignment Alternative ......................................................................3.3-26

3.4-1 Ratings Used for Noise and Vibration Analysis.................................................. 3.4-3

3.4-2 Interim Criteria for High Speed Train Noise Effects on Animals ......................... 3.4-6

3.4-3 Dose Response Relationship between Time Audible and Visitor Annoyance........ 3.4-7

3.4-4 Noise and Vibration Impact Summary Data for Alignment Alternatives and 

Station Location Option Comparisons .............................................................3.4-14

3.4-5 Estimated Peak Hour Construction Noise Levels ..............................................3.4-20

3.4-6 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment ........................................3.4-21

3.4-7 Potential Length and Cost of Noise Mitigation by Alignment .............................3.4-23

3.4-8 Length of Potential Vibration Impact by Alignment ..........................................3.4-25
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS Contents 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page xv

3.5-1 Direct Energy Consumption Factors ................................................................. 3.5-3

3.5-2 Construction-Related Energy Consumption Factors for the Proposed HST 

System .......................................................................................................... 3.5-4

3.5-3 Annual Intercity Operational Energy Consumption in the Study Area ................3.5-12

3.5-4 Annual Operational Energy Consumption in Study Area ...................................3.5-13

3.5-5 Energy Consumption per Passenger Mile Traveled by Mode (PMT) ...................3.5-14

3.5-6 Non-Recoverable Construction-Related Energy Consumption ...........................3.5-16

3.7-1 Compatibility of Land Use Types ..................................................................... 3.7-3

3.7-2 Rankings of Potential Property Impacts ........................................................... 3.7-4

3.7.3. Land Use Summary Data for Alignment Alternatives and Station Location 

Option Comparisons ......................................................................................3.7-19

3.8-1 Farmland Summary Data for Alignment Alternatives and Station Location 

Option Comparisons ....................................................................................... 3.8-6 

3.9-1 Visual Impacts Summary Data for Alignment Alternatives and Station 

Location Option Comparisons ......................................................................... 3.9-7 

3.10-1 Rankings for Potential Public Utilities Impacts/Conflicts ...................................3.10-3 

3.10-2 Public Utilities Summary Data for Alignment Alternatives and Station 

Location Option Comparisons ........................................................................3.10-6 

3.11-1 Hazardous Materials Summary Data for Alignment Alternatives and Station 

Location Option Comparisons ...................................................................... 3.11-10 

3.12-1 Cultural Resources Summary Data for Alignment Alternatives and Station 

Location Option Comparisons ...................................................................... 3.12-12 

3.13-1 Ranking System for Comparing Impacts Related to Geology/Soils/Seismicity ....3.13-2 

3.13-2 Geology and Soils Summary Data for Alignment Alternatives and Station 

Location Option Comparisons ...................................................................... 3.13-10 

3.13-3 Fault Crossings by Alignment and Segment .................................................. 3.13-15 

3.14-1 Summary of Direct Water Resource Impacts for Alignment Alternatives and 

Station Location Option Comparisons ........................................................... 3.14-14 

3.14-2 Summary of Indirect Water Resource Impacts for Alignment Alternatives and 

Station Location Option Comparisons ........................................................... 3.14-18 

3.15-1 Biological Resource Summary Data for Alignment Segments and Station 

Location Option Comparisons ...................................................................... 3.15-27 

3.16-1 Rankings for Potential Direct and Proximity Impacts on Section 4(f) and 6(f) 

Resources ....................................................................................................3.16-3 

3.16-2 Number of Potential High Impacts on Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources by 

Corridor .......................................................................................................3.16-5 

3.16-3 Summary of Potential Impacts on Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources ...................3.16-6 

3.17-1 Cumulative Projects Associated with HST Network Alternatives ............ follows 3.17-4 

3.17-2 Population, Employment (2005-2030) and Urbanization (2002-2030) Trends .. 3.17-11 

3.18-1 System Alternative Construction Types ...........................................................3.18-1 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS Contents 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page xvi

4.2-1 High-Speed Train Alignment Alternatives Capital Cost (in 2006 dollars), 

Including Contingencies and Program Implementation Cost ................................. 4-2

4.2-2 High-Speed Train Passenger Station Cost Summary .......................................... 4-13

4.2-3 High-Speed Train Network Alternatives Cost Summary (in 2006 dollars) ............. 4-15

4.2-4 High-Speed Train Unit Cost (in November 2006 Dollars) .................................... 4-17

4.3-1 Optimal Express Trip Times between City Pairs (220 mph [350 kph] 

maximum speed) ............................................................................................ 4-19

4.3-2 Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs (in 2006 dollars) ............................... 4-21

4.3-3 Annual Costs of Operating and Maintaining High-Speed Train Infrastructure 

(in 2006 dollars) ............................................................................................. 4-22

5.2-1 Existing Population, Employment, and Urbanized Densities .................................. 5-2

5.3-1 Projected Population Growth Rate by Region ...................................................... 5-8

5.3-2 Projected Employment Growth Rate ................................................................... 5-9

5.3-3 Percent of Incremental Growth by Industry ...................................................... 5-11

5.3-4 Increase in Urbanized Area Acreage ................................................................. 5-12

5.3-5 Year 2030 Employment and Population: County and Regional Totals .................. 5-14

5.3-6 Year 2030 Size of Urbanized Area by Alternative ............................................... 5-16

5.3-7 Potential Land Consumption Efficiencies in the Core Study Area ......................... 5-17

5.4-1 Farmland Resources Potentially Affected by Future Urbanization ........................ 5-23

5.4-2 Hydrology and Water Resources Potentially Affected by Future Urbanization ...... 5-27

5.4-3 Biological Resources Potentially Affected by Future Urbanization ........................ 5-28

5.4-4 Wetlands Potentially Affected by Future Urbanization ........................................ 5-29

7.2-1 Altamont Pass: San Francisco and San Jose Termini (Base Case for Altamont 

Pass) ............................................................................................................... 7-4

7.2-2 Altamont Pass: Oakland and San Jose Termini .................................................... 7-9

7.2-3 Altamont Pass: San Francisco, Oakland and San Jose Termini .......................... 7-13

7.2-4 Altamont Pass: San Jose Terminus ................................................................... 7-18

7.2-5 Altamont Pass: San Francisco Terminus ........................................................... 7-21

7.2-6 Altamont Pass: Oakland Terminus .................................................................... 7-25

7.2-7 Altamont Pass: Union City Terminus ............................................................... 7-29

7.2-8 Altamont Pass: San Francisco and San Jose – via San Francisco Peninsula ......... 7-32

7.2-9 Altamont Pass: San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland – with No San 

Francisco Bay Crossing .................................................................................... 7-36

7.2-10 Altamont Pass: Oakland and San Francisco – via Transbay Tube ........................ 7-40

7.2-11 Altamont Pass: San Jose, Oakland, and San Francisco – via Transbay Tube ........ 7-44

7.2-12 Pacheco Pass: San Francisco and San Jose Termini (Base Case for Pacheco) ..... 7-48

7.2-13 Pacheco Pass: Oakland and San Jose Termini .................................................. 7-52

7.2-14 Pacheco Pass: San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose Termini ........................... 7-56
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS Contents 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page xvii

7.2-15 Pacheco Pass: San Jose Terminus ................................................................... 7-60

7.2-16 Pacheco Pass: San Francisco, San Jose and Oakland Termini – via Transbay 

Tube .............................................................................................................. 7-63

7.2-17 Pacheco Pass: San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose Termini ......................... 7-67

7.2-18 Pacheco Pass with Altamont Pass (Local Service): San Francisco and San 

Jose Termini ................................................................................................... 7-71

7.2-19 Pacheco Pass with Altamont (Local Service): Oakland and San Jose Termini ...... 7-76

7.2-20 Pacheco Pass with Altamont Pass (Local Service): SF, Oak, and SJ Termini 

(without Dumbarton Bridge) ............................................................................ 7-80

7.2-21 Pacheco Pass with Altamont Pass (Local Service): San Jose Terminus ................ 7-85

7.3-1 Caltrain: San Francisco to Dumbarton ............................................................. 7-90

7.3-2 Caltrain: Dumbarton to San Jose .................................................................... 7-92

7.3-3 Niles/I-880: Oakland to Niles Junction .............................................................. 7-94

7.3-4 Niles/I-880: Niles Junction to San Jose ............................................................. 7-98

7.3-6 Pacheco Pass Alternatives: San Luis Reservoir to UPRR or BNSF ....................... 7-104

7.3-7 Altamont Pass Alignment Alternatives: Niles Canyon to Altamont Pass ............. 7-109

7.3-8 Altamont Pass Alignment Alternatives: Altamont Pass to UPRR or BNSF 

Connection .................................................................................................... 7-116

7.3-9 Trans Bay Crossings: Oakland to San Francisco .............................................. 7-122

7.3-10 Transbay Crossing: Dumbarton ....................................................................... 7-125

7.3-11 Central Valley Alignment Alternatives .............................................................. 7-131

8.1-1 High-Speed Rail Alignment and Station Evaluation Objectives and Criteria ............ 8-2 

9.3-1 Summary of Key Environmental Impact/Benefits of Alternatives .......................... 9-6 

10.1-1 Scoping Meeting Locations and Times .............................................................. 10-3

10.4-1 Comment Submittals on the Draft Program EIR/EIS .........................................10-10
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS Contents 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page xviii

Figures Follows page 

S.1-1 Bay Area to Central Valley Corridor ....................................................................... S-2 

S.3-1 Bay Area to Central Valley—High-Speed Train Alignment Alternatives and 

Station Location Options Carried Forward for Further Consideration........................ S-4 

S.9-1 Bay Area to Central Valley HST Preferred Alternative ........................................... S-18 

1.1-1 Bay Area to Central Valley Corridor ....................................................................... 1-2 

1.2-1 Intercity Trips ..................................................................................................... 1-6

1.2-2 Existing and Project California Population .............................................................. 1-6 

1.2-3 Major Intercity Travel Routes and Airports ............................................................ 1-8 

1.2-4 Airport Delay—1999* ......................................................................................... 1-10 

1.2-5 2006 Area Designations for National Ambient Air Quality Standards—Ozone ......... 1-14 

1.2-6 Regional Trips—High Growth Corridors (2000—2030) .......................................... 1-14 

1.2-7 Population Growth ............................................................................................. 1-14 

1.2-8 Bay Area Gateways ............................................................................................ 1-14 

1.2-9 Vehicle Hours .................................................................................................... 1-14 

1.2-10 Freeway Capacity .............................................................................................. 1-14 

2.3-1 Relationship between Previous California High-Speed Train Studies ........................ 2-4 

2.3-2 Initial Phase Corridors (Commission Studies, 1996) ............................................... 2-4 

2.3-3 Corridors for Continued Consideration (Commission Studies, 1996) ........................ 2-4 

2.3-4 Average Operating Speed on High-Speed Train System ......................................... 2-6 

2.3-5 VHS Technology Examples ................................................................................... 2-8 

2.3-6 At-Grade Section ............................................................................................... 2-10 

2.3-7 Elevated Structure ............................................................................................. 2-10 

2.3-8 Twin Tunnels .................................................................................................... 2-10 

2.4-1 Study Area Transportation System ...................................................................... 2-20 

2.5-1 Bay Area to Central Valley—High-Speed Train Alignment Alternatives and 

Station Location Options Carried Forward for Further Consideration...................... 2-28 

2.5-2 Alignment Segments and Station Location Options That Compose the HighSpeed Train Alignment Alternatives .................................................................... 2-30 

2.5-3 Profile Characteristics ........................................................................................ 2-40 

2.5-4 Relation to Existing Transportation Corridors ....................................................... 2-40 

2.5-5 San Francisco to San Jose—Alignment Alternatives and Station Location 

Options Carried Forward for Further Consideration .............................................. 2-40 

2.5-6 Oakland to San Jose—Alignment Alternatives and Station Location Options 

Carried Forward for Further Consideration .......................................................... 2-40 

2.5-6A Niles Junction—Alignment Alternatives and Station Location Options Carried 

Forward for Further Consideration ...................................................................... 2-40 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS Contents 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page xix

2.5-7 San Jose to Central Valley—Alignment Alternatives and Station Location 

Options Carried Forward for Further Consideration .............................................. 2-40 

2.5-8 East Bay to Central Valley—Alignment Alternatives and Station Location 

Options Carried Forward for Further Consideration .............................................. 2-42 

2.5-9 San Francisco Bay Crossings (Transbay)—Alignment Alternatives and Station 

Location Options Carried Forward for Further Consideration ................................. 2-42 

2.5-10 San Francisco Bay Crossings (Dumbarton)—Alignment Alternatives and Station 

Location Options Carried Forward for Further Consideration ................................. 2-42 

2.5-11 Central Valley Alignment—Alignment Alternatives and Station Location Options 

Carried Forward for Further Consideration .......................................................... 2-44 

2.5-12 Alignment Alternatives and Station Location Options Considered but Eliminated 

from Further Consideration ................................................................................ 2-44 

2.5-13 Support Facilities Considered (North) .................................................................. 2-46 

3.1-1 Bay Area Intercity Highway Links ...................................................................... 3.1-6 

3.1-2 South Bay and Central Valley Intercity Highway Links ......................................... 3.1-6 

3.2-1 Nationwide Highway Congestion ........................................................................ 3.2-4 

3.2-2 Bay Area Locations of Worst Congestion (as of 2001) ......................................... 3.2-6 

3.3-1 Air Basins in the Study Region .......................................................................... 3.3-12 

3.3-2 Pollutants That May Be Affected ....................................................................... 3.3-16 

3.4-1 Wildlife Impacts at Different Setback Distances and Train Speeds ....................... 3.4-6 

3.4-2 Typical Day-Night Sound Level Environments .................................................... 3.4-10 

3.4-3 Potential Average Operating Speeds ................................................................. 3.4-10 

3.4-4 HT Source Path Receiver Framework ................................................................ 3.4-10 

3.4-5 Noise Sources on HST ...................................................................................... 3.4-10 

3.4-6 Potential Noise Impact Levels ........................................................................... 3.4-18 

3.4-7 Potential Vibration Impact Levels, Northern Mountain Crossing Region ............... 3.4-24 

3.5-1 Major Transmission Paths (230 to 500 kilovolt) .................................................. 3.5-8 

3.7-1 Existing Land Use Bay Area to Merced and Sacramento ...................................... 3.7-6 

3.8-1 Farmland Study Area ........................................................................................ 3.8-4 

3.8-2 Bay Area to Central Valley Farmland .................................................................. 3.8-6 

3.9-1 Urban Mixed Use Typology ................................................................................ 3.9-4 

3.9-2 Urban Suburban Typology ................................................................................. 3.9-4 

3.9-3 Traditional Small Urban Typology ...................................................................... 3.9-4 

3.9-4 Industrial Typology ........................................................................................... 3.9-4 

3.9-5 Rural Agricultural Typology ............................................................................... 3.9-4 

3.9-6 Natural Open Space and Parks Typology ............................................................ 3.9-4 

3.9-7 Rail-Industrial Rural Landscape ......................................................................... 3.9-6 

3.9-8a Grade Separation at Burlingame Station ............................................................ 3.9-14 

3.9-8b Grade Separation at Burlingame Station Project Simulation ................................ 3.9-14 

3.9-9 Future Caltrain Station, Redwood City Downtown Precise Plan ........................... 3.9-16 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS Contents 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page xx

3.9-10a Undercrossing at Fruitvale Avenue .................................................................... 3.9-18 

3.9-10b Undercrossing at Fruitvale Avenue Project Simulation ........................................ 3.9-18 

3.9-11 Caltrain/UPRR along Monterey Highway ............................................................ 3.9-20 

3.9-12a HST Crossing South of Gilroy ........................................................................... 3.9-20 

3.9-12b HST Crossing South of Gilroy Project Simulation ................................................ 3.9-20 

3.9-13a HST Viaduct in Pacheco Creek Valley ................................................................ 3.9-20 

3.9-13b HST Viaduct in Pacheco Creek Valley Project Simulation .................................... 3.9-20 

3.9-14 Romero Creek from San Joaquin National Cemetery .......................................... 3.9-22 

3.9-15a HST Viaduct along Henry Miller Avenue ............................................................ 3.9-22 

3.9-15b HST Viaduct along Henry Miller Avenue Project Simulation ................................. 3.9-22 

3.9-16a HST at I-580/680 Interchange ......................................................................... 3.9-24 

3.9-16b HST at I-580/680 Interchange Project Simulation .............................................. 3.9-24 

3.9-17a HST at grade in Livermore ............................................................................... 3.9-26 

3.9-17b HST at grade in Livermore Project Simulation .................................................... 3.9-26 

3.9-18a HST alongside Freeway, Altamont Pass ............................................................. 3.9-26 

3.9-18b HST alongside Freeway, Altamont Pass Project Simulation ................................. 3.9-26 

3.9-19 I-580, Altamont Pass ....................................................................................... 3.9-26 

3.9-20 Rail Corridor in Tracy ....................................................................................... 3.9-28 

3.9-21 Dumbarton Landscape ..................................................................................... 3.9-30 

3.9-22 Dumbarton High Bridge ................................................................................... 3.9-30 

3.9-23 Dumbarton Low Trestle ................................................................................... 3.9-30 

3.9-24 Tunnel Crossing at Dumbarton ......................................................................... 3.9-30 

3.9-25 UPRR along SR 99 ........................................................................................... 3.9-32 

3.11-1 Potential Vibration Impact Levels ...................................................................... 3.11-6 

3.13-1 Geology in the Study Region ........................................................................... 3.13-8 

3.13-2 Areas Subject to Strong Ground Motion in the Study Region ........................... 3.13-18 

3.13-3 Areas of Potential Liquefaction in the Study Region ........................................ 3.13-18 

3.13-4a Quaternary Faults and Alquist-Priolo Zoned Faults in the Study Region ............ 3.13-20 

3.13-4b Quaternary Faults and Alquist-Priolo Zoned Faults in the East Bay Area ............ 3.13-20 

3.13-4c Quaternary Faults and Alquist-Priolo Zoned Faults in the Calaveras Fault Area .. 3.13-20 

3.13-5 Oil and Gas Fields in the Study Region ........................................................... 3.13-20 

3.13-6 Areas of Uns Slopes in the Study Region ......................................................... 3.13-20 

3.13-7 Revised Calaveras Fault Location .................................................................... 3.13-20 

3.14-1 Bay Area to Central Valley Floodplains .............................................................. 3.14-6 

3.14-2 Bay Area to Central Valley Surface Waters ........................................................ 3.14-8 

3.14-3 Bay Area to Central Valley Groundwater............................................................ 3.14-8 

3.14-4 Bay Area to Central Valley Erodable Soils .......................................................... 3.14-8 

3.15-1 Bay Area to Central Valley Habitat .................................................................. 3.15-16 

3.15-2 Bay Area to Central Valley Wetlands ............................................................... 3.15-16 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS Contents 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page xxi

3.15-3 Bay Area to Central Valley Wildlife Movement Corridors ................................... 3.15-16 

3.15-4 Public Lands – San Jose to Central Valley Corridor ........................................... 3.15-44 

3.16-1 Publicly Owned Lands ...................................................................................... 3.16-6 

3.17-1 Cumulative Projects ......................................................................................... 3.17-4 

3.17-2 Regional Rail Plan Corridors Map ...................................................................... 3.17-8 

4.3-1 Maximum Speeds Attained on Alignment Alternatives .......................................... 4-20 

5.2-1 Regions and Counties .......................................................................................... 5-4 

5.3-1 Methodology Overview ........................................................................................ 5-6 

5.3-2 Employment Growth by Industrial Sector ............................................................ 5-10 

5.3-3 County-Level Population Growth Under the No Project Alternative ........................ 5-14 

5.3-4 County-Level Population Growth under the Pacheco Network Alternative .............. 5-16 

5.3-5 County-Level Population Growth under the Altamont Network Alternative ............. 5-16 

5.3-6 County-Level Employment Growth under the No Project Alternative ..................... 5-16 

5.3-7 County-Level Employment Growth under the Pacheco Network Alternative ........... 5-16 

5.3-8 County-Level Employment Growth under the Altamont Network Alternative .......... 5-16 

7.2-1 Network Alternatives Altamont Pass San Francisco and San Jose Termini ................ 7-4 

7.2-2 Network Alternatives Altamont Pass Oakland and San Jose Termini ...................... 7-10 

7.2-3 Network Alternatives Altamont Pass San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose 

Termini ............................................................................................................. 7-14 

7.2-4 Network Alternatives Altamont Pass San Jose Terminus ....................................... 7-18 

7.2-5 Network Alternatives Altamont Pass San Francisco Terminus ................................ 7-22 

7.2-6 Network Alternatives Altamont Pass Oakland Terminus ........................................ 7-26 

7.2-7 Network Alternatives Altamont Pass Union City Terminus ..................................... 7-30 

7.2-8 Network Alternatives Altamont Pass San Francisco and San Jose—via SF 

Peninsula .......................................................................................................... 7-32 

7.2-9 Network Alternatives Altamont Pass San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland—no 

SF Bay Crossing ................................................................................................ 7-36 

7.2-10 Network Alternatives Altamont Pass Oakland and San Francisco—via Transbay 

Tube ................................................................................................................. 7-40 

7.2-11 Network Alternatives Altamont Pass San Jose, Oakland, and San Francisco—via 

Transbay Tube .................................................................................................. 7-44 

7.2-12 Network Alternatives Pacheco Pass San Francisco and San Jose Termini ............... 7-48 

7.2-13 Network Alternatives Pacheco Pass Oakland and San Jose Termini ....................... 7-52 

7.2-14 Network Alternatives Pacheco Pass San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose 

Termini ............................................................................................................. 7-56 

7.2-15 Network Alternatives Pacheco Pass San Jose Terminus ........................................ 7-60 

7.2-16 Network Alternatives Pacheco Pass San Jose, San Francisco, and Oakland—via 

Transbay Tube .................................................................................................. 7-64 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS Contents 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page xxii

7.2-17 Network Alternatives Pacheco Pass San Jose, Oakland, and San Francisco—via 

Transbay Tube .................................................................................................. 7-68 

7.2-18 Network Alternatives Pacheco Pass with Altamont Pass (Local Service) San 

Francisco and San Jose Termini .......................................................................... 7-72 

7.2-19 Network Alternatives Pacheco Pass with Altamont (Local Service) Oakland and 

San Jose Termini ............................................................................................... 7-76 

7.2-20 Network Alternatives Pacheco Pass with Altamont (Local Service) San 

Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose Termini (without Dumbarton Bridge) ................ 7-80 

7.2-21 Network Alternatives Pacheco Pass with Altamont (Local Service) San Jose 

Terminus .......................................................................................................... 7-86 

7.3-1 HST Alignment Alternatives Caltrain (San Francisco to Dumbarton) ...................... 7-90 

7.3-2 HST Alignment Alternatives Caltrain (Dumbarton to San Jose) .............................. 7-92 

7.3-3 HST Alignment Alternatives Niles/I-880 (Oakland to Niles Junction) ...................... 7-94 

7.3-4 HST Alignment Alternatives Niles/I-880 (Niles Junction to San Jose) ..................... 7-98 

7.3-5 HST Alignment Alternatives Pacheco Pass Alternatives (San Jose to San Luis 

Reservoir) ........................................................................................................ 7-102 

7.3-6 HST Alignment Alternatives Pacheco Pass Alternatives (San Luis Reservoir to 

UPRR or BNSF) ................................................................................................. 7-104 

7.3-7 HST Alignment Alternatives Altamont Pass Alignment Alternatives (Niles 

Canyon to Altamont Pass) ................................................................................. 7-110 

7.3-8 HST Alignment Alternatives Altamont Pass Alignment Alternatives (Altamont 

Pass to UPRR or BNSF Connection) .................................................................... 7-116 

7.3-9 HST Alignment Alternatives Trans Bay Crossings (Oakland to San Francisco) ....... 7-122 

7.3-10 HST Alignment Alternatives Trans Bay Crossings (Dumbarton) ............................ 7-126 

7.3-11 HST Alignment Alternatives Central Valley Alignment Alternatives` ...................... 7-132 

8.5-1 Bay Area to Central Valley HST Preferred Alternative ........................................... 8-16 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page S-1

SUMMARY 

S.1 Introduction and Background 

The California High-Speed Rail Authority (Authority) proposes a high-speed train (HST) system for 

intercity travel in California between the major metropolitan centers of Sacramento and the San Francisco 

Bay Area in the north, through the Central Valley, to Los Angeles and San Diego in the south. The HST 

system is projected to carry as many as 117 million passengers annually by the year 2030. The Authority 

adopted a final business plan (Business Plan) in June 2000, which examined the economic viability of a 

train system capable of speeds in excess of 200 miles per hour (mph) (322 kilometers per hour [kph]) on 

a fully grade-separated track, with state-of-the-art safety, signaling, and automated control systems. The 

Authority and Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) completed a statewide program environmental 

impact report/environmental impact statement (EIR/EIS) in November 2005 as the first phase of a tiered 

environmental review process for the proposed HST system. The HST Alternative was selected by the 

Authority and FRA. As part of this selection, the Authority and FRA defined a broad corridor between the 

Bay Area and Central Valley for additional review at the program level (Figure S.1-1). 

Following the certification of the statewide program EIR/EIS, the Authority initiated this Bay Area to 

Central Valley environmental review process for compliance with state and federal laws, in particular the 

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This Bay 

Area to Central Valley HST Program EIR/EIS (Program EIR/EIS) further examines this region as the next 

phase of the tiered environmental review process. The Authority is the project sponsor and the lead 

agency for purposes of the state CEQA requirements. The FRA is the federal lead agency for compliance 

under NEPA. 

This Bay Area to Central Valley study region is generally bounded by (and includes) the Pacheco Pass 

(State Route 152 [SR 152]) to the south, the Altamont Pass (Interstate 580 [I-580]) to the north, the 

BNSF corridor to the east, and the Caltrain corridor to the west1

 (Figure S.1-1). The Authority directed 

staff to "prepare a separate program-level EIR to identify a preferred alignment within the broad corridor 

between and including the Altamont Pass and Pacheco Pass for the HST segment connecting the San 

Francisco Bay Area to the Central Valley.” This Program EIR/EIS evaluates the potential impacts of 

proposed alignment alternatives and station location options in the study region and defines general 

mitigation strategies to address potentially significant adverse impacts. At the conclusion of this 

environmental process, the Authority and FRA expect to select a network alternative, the corridor 

alignment components within it, and the station locations in the study region. Future tiered, site-specific 

project-level environmental documents will assess the impacts of constructing and implementing 

individual HST projects (i.e., portions of the HST system). 

The Authority envisions seeking possible future federal financial support for the system, which may be 

provided through the FRA. The FRA and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) have several loan 

and loan guarantee programs that might be potential sources of future financial assistance. Although no 

grant or federal bond financing programs currently provide such support, several proposals to create such 

programs are pending before Congress. In addition to possible funding, a Rule of Particular Applicability 

is likely to be required from the FRA to establish safety standards for the proposed HST system for 

operating at speeds over 200 mph (322 kph) and for operations in shared-use rail corridors. 

 

1 Highway route numbers are provided only as a convenient reference for the reader, not as a limitation on the corridor to be 

considered. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS Summary 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page S-2

The Notice of Preparation (NOP) for this Program EIR/EIS was released November 14, 2005. The Notice 

of Intent (NOI) was published in the Federal Register on November 28, 2005. The scoping process 

included 12 officially noticed agency and public scoping meetings in late November and early December 

2005. Recognizing the important relationship of HST alignments and stations to a regional rail system in 

the northern California area, the HST scoping meetings were held in conjunction with public meetings on 

the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Rail Plan initiation meetings. More than 500 people participated in 

the scoping meetings. During the scoping process, the Authority gathered information from agencies and 

interested members of the public regarding their questions and concerns related to the scope of this 

Program EIR/EIS. 

Following the issuance of the NOI and NOP and the scoping meetings, the Authority and the FRA formed 

a working group made up of representatives from 27 federal and state agencies to consult during the 

environmental review process. The interagency group met during the development of this Draft Program 

EIS/EIR to discuss major issues from the perspective of these agencies and to provide input to the lead 

agencies to help focus the analysis and streamline the review process. 

The federal and state agency representatives included in this process were asked to provide input for the 

following specific areas. 

• Scope of the Program EIR/EIS. 

• Purpose and need statement/program objectives. 

• Technical methods of analysis and study area definition. 

• Substantive issues of particular concern. 

• Sources of information and data relevant to their agencies. 

• Impact avoidance, minimization, and mitigation strategies. 

• Identification of possible alternatives to be analyzed in the Program EIR/EIS. 

• Procedural requirements and permits or approvals necessary for subsequent phases of environmental 

review. 

The Authority also held numerous meetings with and invited input from regional and local agencies in the 

region potentially affected by the proposed HST system. Meetings of the Authority governing board were 

also a forum for providing information about the environmental process. These meetings were held in 

major cities in the project area to provide a convenient opportunity for regional and local participation 

and input. 

Comments received during this scoping process assisted the Authority and FRA in their review and 

evaluation of possible HST Alignment Alternatives and station location options and identification of those 

to be carried forward for environmental evaluation in this Program EIR/EIS (described in Section S-3). 

S.2 Purpose of and Need for a High-Speed Train System in California 

S.2-1 Purpose 

This Program EIS/EIR identifies and evaluates HST Alignment Alternatives and station location options 

within and related to the Bay Area to Central Valley study region as part of a statewide HST system. The 

purpose of the Bay Area HST is to provide a reliable high-speed electrified train system that links the 

major Bay Area cities to the Central Valley, Sacramento, and southern California and that delivers 

predictable and consistent travel times. Further objectives are to provide interfaces between the HST 

system and major commercial airports, mass transit, and the highway network and to relieve capacity 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Bay Area to Ce

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS Summary 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page S-3

constraints of the existing transportation system in a manner sensitive to and protective of the Bay Area’s 

and California’s unique natural resources. 

S.2-2 Statewide Need2

The capacity of California’s intercity transportation system is insufficient to meet existing and future 

demand, and the current and projected future congestion of the system will continue to result in 

deteriorating air quality, reduced reliability, and increased travel times. The system has not kept pace 

with the tremendous increase in population, economic activity, and tourism in the state. The interstate 

highway system, commercial airports, and conventional passenger rail system serving the intercity travel 

market are operating at or near capacity and will require large public investments for maintenance and 

expansion to meet existing demand and future growth over the next 20 years and beyond. Moreover, 

the ability to expand many major highways and key airports is uncertain; some needed expansions may 

be impractical or may be constrained by physical, political, or other factors. Simply stated, the need for 

improvements serving intercity travel in California relates to the following issues. 

• Future growth in demand for intercity travel. 

• Capacity constraints that will result in increasing congestion and travel delays. 

• Unreliability of travel stemming from congestion and delays, weather conditions, accidents, and other 

factors that affect the quality of life and economic well-being of residents, businesses, and tourism in 

California. 

• Reduced mobility as a result of increasing demand on limited modal connections between major 

airports, transit systems, and passenger rail in the state. 

• Poor and deteriorating air quality and pressure on natural resources as a result of expanded 

highways and airports. 

S.2-3 Regional Need 

The needs of the Bay Area to Central Valley region are similar to those identified for the statewide HST 

system. 

A. REGIONAL GROWTH 

Today, the nine-county Bay Area is home to nearly 7 million people and more than 3 million jobs. 

By 2050, the region's population is anticipated to grow by more than 40%, for a total of 10 

million people. This population growth will put tremendous pressure on the existing 

transportation network, and the peak travel periods are expected to encompass many more 

hours of the day. For example, MTC's 2000 San Francisco Bay Crossing Study projected the Bay 

Bridge peak period to more than double from 1.5 hours in 2000 to 3.5 hours by 2020. 

Additionally, growth in the region is taking place in the form of dispersed land uses that rely on 

individual vehicles for most trips. Without improved and more extensive transit systems leading 

to the main Central Valley cities and connecting them to each other, there will be little chance for 

these cities to move toward compact transit-oriented development. 

B. REGIONAL CONGESTION 

The Bay Area already experiences the second-worst traffic congestion in the country, after 

Los Angeles. Congestion is expected to worsen over the next 25 years, especially in existing 

hotspots. The combination of significant population growth, dispersed development patterns 

 

2

 Also presented in the statewide program EIR/EIS (California High-Speed Rail Authority and Federal Railroad Administration 2005). 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS Summary 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page S-4

(requiring a car for most trips), highway facilities that cannot keep pace with traffic demands, 

and large increases in interregional commuting, has worsened and will continue to worsen 

congestion levels and the associated environmental and economic impacts. 

C. ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS 

The adverse economic impacts of congestion and inadequate transportation/transit access are 

already apparent. The 150,000 daily hours of Bay Area commute congestion had an estimated 

cost of $2.6 billion in 2003 alone. When transportation access to urban and suburban centers 

becomes too difficult, employers are likely to move jobs to areas where land prices are lower and 

workers' commutes might be shorter. Without better passenger rail access, major job growth will 

continue to decentralize and move to places like the Central Valley. 

D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS 

Without an expanded rail and transit network and more compact development, there may be 

greater adverse effects on the natural environment. More than 400,000 acres (ac) (161,874 

hectares [ha]) of land in the Bay Area are at risk from development. Promoting development in 

walkable communities near HST, intermodal, and other transit stations offers the best 

opportunity for taking development pressure off open space and farms. Demand for an 

additional 550,000 homes near transit in the Bay Area by 2030 is anticipated, but transit-oriented 

development functions well only when transit service is sufficiently frequent and reliable that 

residents can reduce the length and the number of car trips they take. 

An additional growing environmental concern is global climate change, and the transportation 

sector is responsible for about 40% of greenhouse gas emissions in California, and up to 50% in 

the Bay Area. Because these emissions are directly proportional to the amount of fuel burned, 

offering effective and efficient transportation choices can result in reduced driving and reduced 

emissions. 

S.3 Alternatives 

The Program EIR/EIS evaluates the No Project, and HST Alternative Alignments and station locations 

options, and representative HST Network Alternatives within the Bay Area to Central Valley region. 

S.3-1 No Project Alternative 

This Program EIR/EIS compares the No Project and HST Alternative Alignments (Figure S.3-1). For the 

No Project Alternative, both existing and future conditions (2030) are considered. The No Project 

Alternative represents the region’s transportation system (highway, air, and conventional rail) as it 

existed in 1999–2000 and as it would be in 2030 with the addition of transportation projects currently 

programmed for implementation (already in funded programs/financially constrained plans) according to 

the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), regional transportation plans (RTPs) for all 

modes of travel, airport improvement plans, and intercity passenger rail plans. 

The No Project Alternative addresses the geographic area serving the same intercity travel market as the 

proposed HST Alignment Alternatives in the region, as described below. The No Project Alternative is 

assessed for how it would satisfy the purpose and need and program objectives for the HST system 

regarding congestion, safety, reliability, and travel times. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Bay Area to Central Valley High Speed Train Alignm

Station Location Options Carried Forward for Fu

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS Summary 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page S-5

S.3-2 High-Speed Train Alignment Alternatives and Station Location Options 

The HST Alignment Alternatives and station location options in the region represent the proposed action. 

A statewide HST system was selected by the Authority and FRA as the preferred system alternative in the 

statewide Program Final EIR/EIS. It has been identified on a statewide basis as the environmentally 

preferred alternative under NEPA, as well as the environmentally superior alternative under CEQA. 

The HST system would consist of steel train tracks on a trackbed placed at grade level, on an aerial 

structure, in a tunnel, or in a trench. Trainsets would travel on the trackbed between stations and would 

be powered by electrical power supplied to the train from an overhead catenary system that would 

receive its power from the power distribution system. Train maintenance and layover facilities would be 

located at select locations along the HST line. This Program EIR/EIS analyzes the impacts from portions 

of the system that would be located within the broadly defined Bay Area to Central Valley region—

referred to as the study region in this Program EIR/EIS. 

Technology

Informed by previous studies and the statewide program EIR/EIS, the Authority and FRA selected 

state-of-the-art, electrically powered, high-speed, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology for the 

proposed statewide system, which would serve the major metropolitan centers in California, including 

the study region. 

State-of-the-art safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems would be used. The steelwheel-on-steel-rail electrified train is proposed to be primarily on exclusive track, with small portions 

of the route on shared track with other passenger rail operations. The train track would be at grade, 

in an open trench or tunnel, or on an elevated guideway, depending on terrain and physical 

constraints. To reduce potential environmental impacts, extensive portions of many of the alignment 

alternatives are within or adjacent to existing rail or highway right-of-way, rather than on new 

alignment. Tunnel segments of the alignment are proposed through the mountain passes (e.g., 

Diablo Range/Pacheco Pass between south San Jose and the Merced). 

Service Levels

Most passenger service is assumed to run between 6:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. By 2030, the proposed 

service would include approximately 124–139 weekday trains in each direction to serve the study 

region and the statewide intercity travel market, with 91–96 of the trains running between northern 

and southern California and the remaining 33–43 trains serving shorter distance markets. The 

proposed system would be capable of speeds in excess of 200 mph (322 kph), and the projected 

travel times would be designed to compete with air and auto travel. For example, the projected 

travel time by HST between San Francisco in the Bay Area and Los Angeles would be just over 2 and 

a half hours. For 139 trains over a 14-hour period, the overall average train frequency on a given 

alignment segment would be approximately 10 trains per hour per direction. The frequency of these 

trains would vary over the period of the day, with more frequent long-distance trains departing in the 

peak hours from the major urban origins. 

A representative statewide system evaluated in this Program EIR/EIS was forecast to carry between 

88 and 117 million passengers in 2030, with the potential to accommodate higher ridership by adding 

trains. For a conservative assessment of potential environmental impacts, the higher ridership 

forecast has been used in describing the proposed HST system and its impacts, and is referred to as 

representative demand ridership. However, for resource topics where the high-end ridership 

forecasts would result in potential benefits (e.g., energy, air quality, and travel conditions), the lowend ridership forecasts were used the analysis. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS Summary 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page S-6

Determination of Range of Alternative Alignments and Station Location Options

The Authority and the FRA started developing the HST Alignment Alternatives by seeking to identify 

the most reasonable and practicable HST corridors, alignments, and station location options for 

analysis in this Program EIR/EIS. As part of this process, HST technologies and corridors previously 

considered were reevaluated, and a screening of potential alignment alternatives and station location 

options was conducted. This screening analyzed all reasonable and practical alignment alternatives 

and station location options within the selected HST corridors in the study region. 

The evaluation of potential HST corridors, alignment alternatives, and station location options used 

the following factors: extent of construction difficulty, environmental impacts, land use compatibility, 

right-of-way needs, potential connectivity/accessibility to other transportation facilities and services, 

and ridership/revenue generation potential. The screening of alignment alternatives and station 

location options comprised the following key activities. 

• Review of past alignment alternatives and station location options identified within selected 

corridors defined in previous studies. 

• Identification through the environmental scoping process of alignment alternatives and station 

location options not previously evaluated. 

• Evaluation of alignment alternatives and station location options using standardized engineering, 

environmental, and financial criteria (described above) and evaluation methodologies at a 

consistent level of analysis. 

• Identification of the ability of alignment alternatives and station location options to meet defined 

objectives. 

The results of this analysis are documented in the Draft Alignment Alternatives and Potential Station 

Locations Options Report (California High-Speed Rail Authority and Federal Railroad Administration 

2006), presented at the Authority’s March 22, 2006, board meeting and in the Additional Potential 

HST Alignment and Stations Considered but Rejected Report (California High-Speed Rail Authority 

and Federal Railroad Administration 2006) presented at the Authority’s August 9, 2006, Board 

Meeting. Technical data, combined with public and agency input, provided the Authority and the FRA 

with the necessary information to focus further studies for the Program EIR/EIS on those alignment 

alternatives, station location options, and HST systems that represent a reasonable range of 

practicable alternatives to meet the project purpose and attain several objectives established by the 

Authority. Those objectives include: 

• Maximize ridership and revenue potential. 

• Maximize connectivity and accessibility. 

• Maximize compatibility with existing and planned development. 

• Maximize avoidance of areas with geologic and soils constraints. 

• Maximize avoidance of areas with potential hazardous materials. 

• Minimize operating and capital costs. 

• Minimize impacts on natural resources. 

• Minimize impacts on social and economic resources. 

• Minimize impacts on cultural resources. 

Complex issues associated with the tunneling were addressed as part of the statewide program 

EIR/EIS process. This work focused on the feasibility, construction methods, and cost assumptions 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS Summary 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page S-7

associated with proposed tunneling for the HST system and resulted in the Authority’s objective of 

minimizing the amount of tunneling required, particularly the use of long tunnels (more than 6 mi 

[10 km] long), due to cost, time of construction, and potential for delay. Tunnels more than 12 mi 

(19 km) long are generally considered infeasible for this project, and it is the Authority’s objective to 

cross major fault zones at grade. The technical information produced as part of the statewide 

program EIR/EIS is documented in the Tunneling Issues Report (California High-Speed Rail Authority 

January 2004). 

Alternative Alignments and Station Location Options

To facilitate analysis and presentation of the HST Alignment Alternatives in this Program EIR/EIS, the 

study region was divided into six corridors: (1) San Francisco to San Jose, (2) Oakland to San Jose, 

(3) San Jose to Central Valley, (4) East Bay to Central Valley, (5) San Francisco Bay Crossings, and 

(6) Central Valley. These corridors encompass considerable variations in terms of land use, terrain, 

and construction configuration (mix of at-grade, aerial structure, and tunnel sections). The alignment 

alternatives and station location options considered in each corridor are defined in Table S.3-1. 

Table S.3-1 

Alignment Alternatives and Potential Station Location Options 

Corridor 

Possible 

Alignments 

Alignment 

Alternative Alignment Alternative Description 

San Francisco 

to San Jose: 

Caltrain 

1 of 1 San Francisco to 

Dumbarton 

From San Francisco, this alignment alternative would follow 

south the Caltrain rail alignment and assumes that the HST 

system would share tracks with Caltrain commuter trains. The 

entire alignment would be grade separated. 1 of 1 Dumbarton to San 

Jose 

Station Location Options 

One of two: Transbay Transit Center or 4th and King 

Millbrae/SFO 

One of two: Redwood City or Palo Alto 

Oakland to San 

Jose: Niles/ 

I-880 

1 of 2 West Oakland to 

Niles Junction 

From Oakland, this alignment alternative would travel south 

following the Union Pacific Railroad’s (UPRR’s) Niles Subdivision 

Line (i.e., Hayward Line) and then transition to I-880. The 

alignment would be at-grade along the Niles Subdivision Line. 12th Street/City 

Center to Niles 

Junction 

1 of 2 Niles Junction to 

San Jose via 

Trimble 

The alignment alternative would be at-grade along the Niles 

Subdivision Line and on an aerial structure in the median of I880. The I-880 HST portion would mostly be on an aerial 

configuration from San Jose to Fremont. The Trimble Road 

segment would be on an aerial structure and in a tunnel 

(where adjacent to San Jose International Airport). 

Niles Junction to 

San Jose via I-880 

This alignment alternative would travel south following the 

UPRR’s Niles Subdivision Line (i.e., Hayward Line), then 

transition to I-880. The alignment would be at-grade along 

the Niles Subdivision Line and on an aerial structure in the 

median of I-880. The I-880 HST portion would mostly be on 

an aerial configuration from San Jose to Fremont. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS Summary 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page S-8

Corridor 

Possible 

Alignments 

Alignment 

Alternative Alignment Alternative Description 

Station Location Options 

One of two: West Oakland/7th Street or 12th Street/City Center 

Coliseum/Airport 

One of two: Union City (BART) or Fremont (Warm Springs) 

San Jose to 

Central Valley: 

Pacheco Pass 

1 of 1 Pacheco This alignment alternative would extend south along the 

Caltrain/UPRR rail corridor through the Pacheco Pass and then 

the San Joaquin Valley along either Henry Miller Road 

(connecting to either the UPRR or BNSF) or north of the 

Grassland Ecological Area (GEA) connection to the BNSF. 

1 of 3 Henry Miller (UPRR 

Connection) 

Henry Miller (BNSF 

Connection)

GEA North 

Station Location Options 

o San Jose (Diridon) 

o One of two stations: Morgan Hill (Caltrain) or Gilroy (Caltrain) 

East Bay to 

Central Valley: 

Altamont Pass

1 of 4 I-680/ 580/UPRR This alignment alternative would extend east via a relatively 

direct routing (mostly in tunnel) between Niles Junction and I680, then use the I-680 alignment before transitioning to the I580 corridor (at the I-580/I-680 junction). 

I-580/ UPRR This alignment alternative would extend east via a relatively 

direct routing (mostly in tunnel) between Niles Junction and I680, then use the UPRR alignment through Pleasanton before 

transitioning to the I-580 corridor through Livermore and the 

Altamont Pass to Tracy. 

Patterson 

Pass/UPRR 

This alignment alternative would extend east via a relatively 

direct routing (mostly in tunnel) between Niles Junction and I680 then use the UPRR alignment through Pleasanton and 

Livermore before transitioning to the I-580 corridor through the 

Patterson Pass between Livermore and Tracy. 

UPRR This alignment alternative would extend east via a relatively 

direct routing (mostly in tunnel) between Niles Junction and I680, then use the UPRR alignment through Pleasanton and 

Livermore before transitioning to the I-580 corridor through the 

Altamont Pass to Tracy. 

1 of 4 Tracy Downtown 

(BNSF Connection) 

From Livermore, these alignments would pass through either 

downtown Tracy or to the current Tracy ACE station connection 

with either the BNSF or UPRR. Tracy ACE Station 

(BNSF Connection) 

Tracy ACE Station 

(UPRR Connection) 

Tracy Downtown 

(UPRR Connection) 

Station Location Options 

One of six stations, depending on the alignment alternative: Pleasanton (I-680/Bernal Rd), Pleasanton (BART), 

Livermore (Downtown) , Livermore (I-580), Livermore (Greenville Road/UPRR), Livermore (Greenville Road/I-580) 

One of two stations, depending on the alignment alternative: Tracy (Downtown) or Tracy (ACE) 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS Summary 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page S-9

Corridor 

Possible 

Alignments 

Alignment 

Alternative Alignment Alternative Description 

San Francisco 

Bay Crossings 

1 of 2 Trans Bay Crossing 

– Transbay Transit 

Center 

This alignment alternative would connect the Oakland (West 

Oakland or 12th Street City Center) and San Francisco 

(Transbay Transit Center or 4th and King) HST stations via a 

new transbay tube. This alignment could serve either Altamont 

Pass or Pacheco Pass alignment alternatives. Trans Bay Crossing 

– 4th & King 

1 of 6 

Dumbarton (High 

Bridge) 

This alignment alternative would serve the Altamont Pass 

alignment alternatives and link the East Bay to the San 

Francisco Peninsula in the vicinity of the existing Dumbarton 

Rail Bridge. Between Niles Junction and the Dumbarton 

Bridge, this option would use the Centerville rail alignment. 

Design options for this alignment include use of an improved 

Dumbarton Rail Bridge (low level), a new high-level bridge, and 

a new transbay tube. 

Dumbarton 

(Low Bridge) 

Dumbarton (Tube) 

Fremont Central 

Park 

(High Bridge) 

This alignment alternative would serve the Altamont Pass 

alignment alternatives and link the East Bay to the San 

Francisco Peninsula in the vicinity of the existing Dumbarton 

Rail Bridge. Between Niles Junction and the Dumbarton 

Bridge, this alignment alternative would use an existing utility 

alignment and a new alignment through the Don Edwards 

Natural Wildlife Refuge. Design options for this alignment 

include use of an improved Dumbarton Rail Bridge (low level), 

a new high-level bridge, and a new transbay tube. 

Fremont Central 

Park 

(Low Bridge) 

Fremont Central 

Park 

(Tube) 

Station Location Options 

Union City (Shinn) 

Central Valley 

1 of 6 

BNSF – UPRR This alignment alternative would use various connectors 

between the BNSF and UPRR alignments. 

BNSF This alignment alternative would connect with either the 

Altamont or Pacheco Pass alignment alternatives, using 

principally the BNSF rail line in the Central Valley. 

UPRR N/S This alignment alternative would connect with either the 

Altamont or Pacheco Pass alignment alternatives, using 

principally the UPRR rail line in the Central Valley. 

BNSF Castle This alignment alternative would diverge from the BNSF 

alignment to serve the Castle Air Force Base (AFB). 

UPRR – BNSF 

Castle 

This alignment alternative would diverge from the UPRR - BNSF 

alignment to serve the Castle AFB. 

UPRR – BNSF This alignment alternative would use various connectors 

between the UPRR and BNSF alignments. 

Station Location Options 

One of two stations for Modesto, depending on the alignment alternative: Downtown Modesto or Briggsmore 

(Amtrak). 

One of two stations for Merced, depending on the alignment alternative: Downtown Merced or Castle AFB. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS Summary 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page S-10

The alignment alternatives and stations location options analyzed in this Program EIR/EIS are shown in 

Figure S.3-1. For purposes of this analysis, conceptual designs were developed for all of the alignment 

alternatives and station location options carried forward that include plan and profile sheets, cross 

sections, and station descriptions (Appendices 2-D through 2-F). Conceptual designs are based on 

Engineering Criteria (California High-Speed Rail Authority and Federal Railroad Administration 2004). 

As part of the development of the Bay Area Regional Rail Plan, some HST Alignment Alternatives were 

considered for regional rail “overlay” services that would be implemented by other transportation 

agencies in cooperation with the Authority. Overlay services would involve operating regional commuter 

trains on the HST infrastructure and serving additional non-HST regional rail stations. Regional rail 

overlay services are not integral to the HST system and are not considered alternatives in this Program 

EIR/EIS; however, the development of the regional rail plan is considered in the cumulative analysis of 

HST Alignment Alternatives as a related but separate potential project. 

Network Alternatives

Information for a range of HST Network Alternatives is also reported to better understand the 

implications of selection of certain alignment alternatives and station location options. A network 

alternative consists of a combination of alignment alternatives and station location options (i.e., 

combining the corridors described on page S-6 and listed in Table S.3-1, to provide an HST network 

in the study region as part of a statewide HST system). To provide a broad range of information 

about network alternatives, several operating scenarios for combinations of terminus stations were 

investigated, with one exception (a network alternative that terminates in Union City), the network 

alternatives range from one to three of the major city centers in the Bay Area (San Francisco, 

Oakland, and San Jose) having direct HST service. Representative network alternatives are defined 

in Chapter 2, described in Chapter 7, and evaluated in Chapter 8. The Preferred Network Alternative 

is described in Section S.9 and Chapter 8. 

S.4 Areas of Controversy 

In considering a choice of alignment alternatives and station location options to form an HST network in 

the study region, the Authority has taken into account potential impacts on natural resources, cost, travel 

conditions, effects on travel time and ridership, and public and agency input. Other considerations 

include possible modifications to alignment alternatives by using more costly designs and construction 

techniques (e.g., tunnels and elevated guideways), or moving the location of alignments for functional or 

cost reasons or to avoid or minimize impacts on sensitive resources. The following are the known 

principal areas of controversy: 

• Selection of an HST network with appropriate service to the Bay Area, including choice of mountain 

crossing, choice of alignments, location of stations, and number of stations directly served (Chapters 

2, 7, and 8). 

• Impacts to biological resources and wildlife areas, particularly related to the San Francisco Bay 

Crossings and the Grasslands Ecological Area (GEA) (Section 3.15 and Chapter 8). 

• Impacts to urban areas, mostly from noise and visual effects, community effects, and property 

impacts related to right-of-way acquisition (Sections 3.4, 3.7, and 3.9). 

S.5 Avoidance and Minimization 

As currently planned, the HST system would avoid and minimize many potential negative environmental 

consequences. Conceptual designs for the HST Alignment Alternatives meet the project objectives and 

design criteria, which set specific goals to avoid and minimize negative environmental consequences. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS Summary 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page S-11

Chapter 3 includes in each topic area a discussion of mitigation strategies. In addition, design and 

construction practices have been identified that would be employed as the HST system is developed 

further in the project-level environmental review, final design, and construction stages. Key aspects of 

the design practices include (i.e., are not limited to) the following. 

• Minimize impact footprint and associated direct impacts to farmlands, parklands, biological, and water 

resources through maximum use of existing transportation corridors. 

• Minimize impact associated with growth effects through the selection of multi-modal transportation 

hubs for potential HST station locations that would maximize access and connectivity as well as 

provide efficient (transit oriented) growth centered on these station locations. 

• Minimize impact to farmlands and associated growth through the selection of multimodal 

transportation hubs for potential HST station locations that would maximize access and connectivity 

as well as provide for efficient (transit-oriented) growth centered on these station locations. 

• Increase safety and circulation and potentially reduce air pollution and noise impacts, through use of 

grade separation at road crossings, of considerable portions of adjacent existing services with 

construction of the planned HST system. 

• Pursue agreements with owners/rail operators to place the HST alignment within existing rail 

rights-of-way, to reduce the need for additional right-of-way and minimize potential impacts to 

agricultural resources and other natural resources. 

• Cooperate with regulatory agencies to develop acceptable specific design and construction standards 

for stream crossings, including (i.e., not limited to) maintaining open surface (bridged versus closed 

culvert) crossings, infrastructure setbacks, erosion control measures, sediment-controlling 

excavation/fill practices, and other best management practices. 

• Fully line tunnels with impermeable material to prevent infiltration of groundwater or surface waters 

to the extent possible based on available geologic information and previous tunneling projects in 

proximity to proposed tunnels. 

• Where there is potential for significant barrier effects that could divide wildlife populations or habitat 

areas or impede wildlife migration corridors, underpasses or overpasses or appropriate passageways 

will be designed during project-level environmental review for implementation at reasonable intervals 

during construction to avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential impacts to wildlife movement. 

• The potential impacts associated with construction access roads would be greatly limited, and 

avoided altogether through sensitive areas (as defined at the project level), by using in-line 

construction (i.e., by using the new rail infrastructure as it is built to transport equipment to and from 

the construction site and transporting excavated materials away from the construction area to 

appropriate reuse [e.g., as fill material, aggregate for new concrete] or disposal sites). To avoid 

creating access roads in sensitive areas (as defined at the project level), necessary geologic 

exploration would be conducted using helicopter transport for drilling equipment to minimize surface 

disruption, followed by site restoration on the completion of work. 

In addition, the network alternatives have the potential to reduce overall air pollution, total energy 

consumption, and traffic congestion as compared to the No Project Alternative. Comparing the energy 

required by each mode to carry a passenger 1 mile (1.6 km), an HST needs only about one-third that 

required by an airplane and one-fifth that required by a commuter automobile trip. Comparing the 

pollutant burden generated by each mode to carry a passenger 1 mile (1.6 km), an HST generates 

approximately less than one-tenth of the pollutants (excluding CO2) that would be generated by an 

airplane or by a commuter automobile trip. The representative base HST forecast would result in a 

reduction of 22 million barrels of oil and 17.6 billion pounds of CO2 emissions annually by 2030, as 

compared to the No Project Alternative. Diversions from the automobile to HST could lead to a projected 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS Summary 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page S-12

5% statewide reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on the highway system, with VMT reductions of 

between 7% and 12% in Bay Area and Central Valley counties. 

S.6 HST Station Area Development 

There would be great benefits from enhancing development patterns and increasing development 

densities near proposed HST stations. To further this objective the Authority has outlined the station 

area development objectives described in Chapter 6. These include: 

• The preferred HST station locations would be multi-modal transportation hubs and would typically be 

in traditional city centers to provide maximum opportunity for station area development in 

accordance with the purpose, need, and objectives for the HST system. 

• To be considered for a station, the proposed site must have the potential to promote higher density, 

mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented development around the station. 

• As the HST project proceeds to more detailed study, and before a final station location decision is 

made, the responsible local governments(s) are expected to provide (through planning and zoning) 

for transit oriented development around HST stations. 

• As the project proceeds to more detailed study, local governments are expected to finance (e.g., 

through value-capture or other financing techniques) the public spaces needed to support the 

pedestrian traffic generated by hub stations, as well as identifying long-term maintenance of the 

spaces. 

• Parking for the HST services at HST stations would be provided at market rates, with a strong 

preference that parking be placed in structures. 

• Provide incentives for local governments in which potential HST stations would be located to prepare 

and adopt station area plans, amend city and county general plans, and encourage transit oriented 

development in the vicinity of HST stations. 

S.7 Public and Agency Involvement 

Public and agency involvement was conducted as part of this program environmental process. 

Involvement was accomplished through a variety of means, including the scoping process, which included 

a series of public and agency scoping meetings, consultation meetings with federal and state resource 

agency staff representatives throughout the environmental process, informational meetings with 

interested groups and agencies, presentations and briefings to a broad spectrum of interest groups, 

information materials (such as a series of fact sheets), the Authority’s Web site presenting information 

about the proposed project and study evaluations, noticed public meetings of the Authority’s governing 

board at which key policy issues and decisions were raised and discussed and opportunities for public 

comment were provided, public circulation and posting of the Draft Program EIR/EIS on the Authority’s 

website, and 8 public hearings on the Draft Program EIR/EIS. 

S.7-1 Summary of Comments on the Identification of the Preferred Alternative 

The identification of a preferred HST alignment between the Bay Area and Central Valley is controversial, 

and this program EIR/EIS process has received a considerable amount of comment from agencies 

(federal, state, regional, and local), organizations, and the general public. There is a wide divergence of 

opinion with many favoring the Pacheco Pass, many favoring the Altamont Pass, and many favoring a 

combination of both passes (with the Pacheco serving as the north/south HST connection and Altamont 

primarily serving interregional commuter service between Sacramento/Northern San Joaquin Valley and 

the Bay Area). 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS Summary 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page S-13

A. PACHECO 

The Pacheco Pass supporters include the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the cities of 

San Francisco, San Jose, Redwood City, Fremont, Morgan Hill, Cupertino, Sunnyvale, Gilroy, and 

Salinas; the counties of San Francisco, Santa Clara, San Mateo, and Monterey; Congress members 

Lofgren, Honda, Eshoo, and Lantos; Assembly member Beale; State Senators Alquist and Maldanado; 

the San Francisco County Transportation Agency; the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 

(VTA); Peninsula Corridor (Caltrain) Joint Powers Board (JPB); San Mateo County Transit District 

(SamTrans); San Mateo County Transportation Authority (TA); Monterey County Transportation 

Agency; Alameda County Congestion Management Agency; Alameda County Supervisor Scott 

Haggerty; the San Jose, the Redwood City, and the San Mateo County Chamber of Commerce; the 

Silicon Valley Leadership Group; and a number of members of the public representing themselves. 

There are a number of reasons supporters give for preferring the Pacheco Pass, including: 1) quicker 

travel times between San Jose/Silicon Valley and Southern California; 2) more frequent/better service 

between Bay Area and southern California; 3) higher ridership potential; 4) less potential 

environmental impacts; 5) avoiding impacts on wildlife and sensitive habitat through Don Edwards 

San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge; 6) best serves the Caltrain Corridor (San Francisco to 

Gilroy); 7) provides good HST access for the three county Monterey Bay area with a south Santa 

Clara HST station; 8) can serve San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose without a new crossing of the 

Bay; 9) all service through San Jose/best serves south Bay; and 10) less cost for first phase of 

system between the Bay Area and Anaheim. 

There are a considerable number of organizations, agencies, and individuals who have expressed 

concern regarding potential impacts on the GEA and/or the uninhabited portions of the Pacheco Pass 

by HST alternatives via the Pacheco Pass. These include the USFWS, CDFG, California Department of 

Parks and Recreation, Grassland Water District, Grassland Resources Conservation District, Grassland 

Conservation, Education & Legal Defense Fund, Ducks Unlimited, California Outdoor Heritage 

Alliance, California Waterfowl Association, Sacramento Area Council of Governments, Citizens’ 

Committee to Complete the Refuge, Bay Rail Alliance, California Rail Foundation (CRF), California 

State Parks Foundation (CSPF), Defenders of Wildlife, Planning and Conservation League (PCL), 

Regional Alliance for Transit (RAFT), Sierra Club, Train Riders Association of California (TRAC), and 

Transportation Solutions Defense and Education Fund (TRANSDEF). California Department of Parks 

and Recreation raised concerns regarding potential impacts on State Parks and reserve resources 

through the Pacheco Pass. In addition, the town of Atherton opposes use of the Caltrain Corridor 

between San Jose and San Francisco and the City of Millbrae has raised concerns regarding potential 

impacts through the City of Millbrae. 

B. ALTAMONT 

The Altamont Pass supporters include the cities of Oakland, Union City, and Atwater; the town of 

Atherton; the counties of San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Mariposa, and Kern; the California Partnership for 

the San Joaquin Valley; the San Joaquin Regional Policy Council; Sacramento Area Council of 

Governments; San Joaquin County Council of Governments; Tulare County Association of 

Governments; Altamont Commuter Express (ACE); California Department of Parks and Recreation; 

California Environmental Coalition; California State Parks Foundation (CSPF); Planning and 

Conservation League (PCL); Sierra Club; Grassland Water District; Grassland Resources Conservation 

District; Grassland Conservation, Education & Legal Defense Fund; California Outdoor Heritage 

Alliance; Bay Rail Alliance; Transportation Involves Everyone (TIE); San Joaquin COG Citizens 

Advisory Committee; Tracy Region Alliance for a Quality Community; Ducks Unlimited; Transportation 

Solutions Defense and Education Fund (TRANSDEF); California Rail Foundation (CRF); Defenders of 

Wildlife; Regional Alliance for Transit (RAFT); Citizens’ Committee to Complete the Refuge; Train 

Riders Association of California (TRAC); and a number of members of the public representing 

themselves. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS Summary 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page S-14

There are a number of reasons supporters give for preferring the Altamont Pass including: 1) quicker 

travel times between Sacramento/Northern San Joaquin Valley and the Bay Area; 2) best serves the 

Central Valley; 3) more Northern San Joaquin markets served on the Authority’s adopted first phase 

of construction between the Bay Area and Anaheim; 4) higher ridership potential; 5) less potential for 

environmental impacts; 6) avoids impacts on wildlife and sensitive habitat through Pacheco Pass and 

the GEA; 7) serves a greater population/more population along the alignment; 8) best serves ACE 

corridor and reduces traffic along I-580; 9) better service between Bay Area and Southern California 

(either reduced frequency is needed on shared Caltrain alignment or HST trains can be split); 10) 

best serves San Jose since it would be a terminus station and with much faster travel times to 

commuter markets in the Northern San Joaquin Valley; and 11) is less sprawl inducing. 

There are a considerable number of organizations, agencies, and individuals who have expressed 

concern regarding potential impacts on the San Francisco Bay and Don Edwards San Francisco Bay 

National Wildlife Refuge by HST alternatives via the Altamont Pass using a Dumbarton Crossing. 

These include the MTC; BCDC; USEPA; USFWS; Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife 

Refuge; Congress members Zoe Lofgren, Michael Honda, Anna Eshoo, and Tom Lantos; State 

Senators Elaine Alquist and Abel Maldanado; Assembly member Jim Beale; Santa Clara County; San 

Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans); San Mateo County Transportation Authority (TA); 

Peninsula Corridor (Caltrain) Joint Powers Board (JPB); San Francisco Bay Trail Project; San Jose 

Chamber of Commerce; San Francisco Bay Trail Project; the City of San Jose; the City of Oakland; 

and Don Edwards (Member of Congress, 1963-1995). The East Bay Regional Park District has raised 

concerns in regards to potential impacts on nine regional parks, in particular the Pleasanton Ridge 

and Vargas Plateau regional parks, and the Alameda Creek Regional Train between Pleasanton and 

Niles Junction for Altamont Pass alternatives. In addition, the City of Fremont opposes the Altamont 

Pass, and the City of Pleasanton does not support the Altamont Pass but remains “open” to 

terminating Altamont alternatives in Livermore. The MTC and Alameda County Supervisor Scott 

Haggerty also support the investigation of Altamont Pass alternatives terminating in Livermore. 

C. COMBINED PACHECO AND ALTAMONT 

After completing a two-year “Regional Rail” planning process, the MTC has re-confirmed support for 

the Pacheco alignment via the San Francisco Peninsula as the main HSR express line between 

Northern and Southern California, however, MTC’s resolution also endorses the Altamont route as 

better suited to serve interregional and local travel between the Bay Area and the Northern San 

Joaquin Valley and requests that CHSRA consider seeking additional HSR bond funds dedicated to 

upgrading the Altamont corridor for regional service. The Tri-Valley Policy Working Group and 

Technical Advisory Committee (Tri-Valley PAC) took a similar position: 

The Draft Bay Area EIR/EIS includes a Bay Area HSR alignment that would include High Speed 

Train service through the Pacheco Pass and regional overlay service provided through the Altamont 

pass. The Policy Advisory Committee believes that this option may present the best way of 

addressing our concerns and delivering optimal HST service to the region as a whole. 

The Capitol Corridor JPB supports “in principle the concept of the two high-speed alignments into and 

out of the Bay Area. Each alignment would provide a means to meet the high-speed travel markets 

for (1) long distance travelers from Los Angeles/Southern California using the Pacheco Pass route 

and (2) the interregional travelers from the Central Valley using the Altamont Pass route.” The MTC 

recommendations are also supported by the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency and 

Alameda County Supervisor Scott Haggerty. 

The USEPA recommended “eliminating from further consideration a high speed rail alternative 

connecting Bay Area to Central Valley that includes both an Altamont and a Pacheco Pass alignment, 

termed, “Pacheco Pass with Local Service” in the Draft PEIS. This scenario would effectively result in 

twice the habitat fragmentation, noise, and indirect impacts to aquatic resources. This alternative 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS Summary 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page S-15

would likely result in CWA Section 404 permitting challenges because it is difficult to demonstrate 

that mountain crossings at both Pacheco and Altamont Passes represent the LEDPA given the 

increased indirect impacts to aquatic resources and habitat fragmentation associated with this 

alternative.” 

S.8 High-Speed Train Network Alternatives Evaluation 

HST Network Alternatives represent different ways to combine HST Alignment Alternatives and station 

location options to implement the HST system in the study region. The Draft Program EIR/EIS focused 

on analysis of HST Alignment Alternatives. Because there are many possible combinations of alignments 

and stations, 21 representative HST network alternatives were considered and described to better 

understand the implications of selection of certain alignment alternatives and station location options. 

The evaluation of Network Alternatives presented in Chapter 8 in this Final Program EIR/EIS has been 

informed by agency and public review and comment on the Draft Program EIR/EIS. 

A summary evaluation considering important differences among network alternatives is described below. 

Table S.8-1 presents the characteristics and potential impacts for the 21 representative network 

alternatives. These representative network alternatives are grouped into three basic approaches for 

linking the Bay Area and Central Valley: Altamont Pass (11 network alternatives); Pacheco Pass (6 

network alternatives); and Pacheco Pass with Altamont Pass (local service) (4 network alternatives). 

The impact quantities provided are prior to any mitigation. A more extensive presentation of 

characteristics and potential impacts is provided in Chapter 7. 

The network alternatives were developed to enable an evaluation and comparison of how various 

combinations of alignment alternatives would meet the project’s purpose and need and how each would 

perform as a HST network (e.g., travel times between various station locations, anticipated ridership, 

operating and maintenance costs, energy consumption, and auto trip diversions). The different system 

characteristics, as well as environmental factors of the network alternatives, present complex choices that 

are now better supported and informed in this Final EIR/EIS, following agency and public review and 

comment on the Draft Program EIR/EIS. 

The network alternatives vary in the degree they serve urban areas/centers and international airports. All 

but one would provide direct HST services to (i.e., include a HST station within) one and up to three of 

the major urban centers in the Bay Area—San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland. Some of the network 

alternatives would provide service to one or more of the three Bay Area international airports at San 

Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose. Connectivity and enhancement of other transit systems (e.g. ACE, 

Caltrain, Capitol Corridor, BART, and Valley Transportation Authority) also varies greatly among the 

network alternatives. 

Overall, implementing the HST system would greatly increase the capacity for intercity and commuter 

travel and reduce existing automobile traffic in specific travel corridors. Full grade-separation along Bay 

Area rail corridors used by the HST would improve local traffic flow and reduce air pollution at existing 

rail crossings. The more extensive the HST system implemented in the Bay Area, the greater the travel 

condition benefits, including increased connectivity to other transit systems, increased convenience, 

increased reliability, and improved travel times. In particular, more direct connections to the region’s 

airports provide increased connectivity for air transportation system riders. 

Recognizing the benefits described above, as well as other attributes, the cities of San Francisco, 

Oakland, and San Jose all strongly support direct HST service to their respective downtowns. This 

support was expressed as comments on the Draft Program EIR/EIS, and is consistent with 

comments/input provided by these cities over the ten years since the Authority was created. MTC, the 

regional government for the Bay Area, supports direct HST service to the downtowns of each of these 

three major Bay Area urban centers. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS Summary 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page S-16

A number of Network Alternatives clearly do not meet the purpose and need for the HST system. The 

Altamont Pass network alternative that terminates in Union City fails since it does not provide direct HST 

service to San Francisco, Oakland, or San Jose (the major Bay Area cities) nor does it provide interface 

with the major commercial airports. Also failing are a Pacheco Pass network alternative that terminates 

in San Jose and three Altamont Pass network alternatives that only serve one of the three major urban 

areas/centers. These four alternatives directly provide HST service to at most only one major Bay Area 

city and one of the region’s major commercial airports. 

The Pacheco Pass with Altamont Pass (local service) network alternatives do not compare well against 

either the Pacheco Pass or Altamont Pass network alternatives in the Draft Program EIR/EIS for HST 

service to be provided by the Authority. These network alternatives resulted in similar ridership and 

revenue forecasts (with less revenue than comparable Pacheco Pass network alternatives) while having 

considerably higher capital costs ($4.4–6.0 billion more for comparable terminus station locations). 

Although the Pacheco Pass with Altamont Pass (local service) alternatives would increase connectivity 

and accessibility by potentially providing direct HST service to additional markets, these alternatives 

would have considerably higher environmental impacts, construction issues and logistical constraints than 

Altamont or Pacheco Pass alternatives. The USEPA concluded that the Pacheco Pass with Altamont Pass 

(local service) network alternatives are not likely to contain the Least Environmentally Damaging 

Alternative (LEDPA), which is a clean water requirement. 

S.8-1 Comparison of Pacheco Pass and Altamont Pass Alternatives 

Public Input: There is a wide divergence of opinion for the selection of the alignment between the Bay 

Area and Central Valley with many favoring the Pacheco Pass, many favoring the Altamont Pass, and 

many favoring doing both passes (with the Pacheco serving as the north/south HST connection and 

Altamont primarily serving interregional commuter service between Sacramento/Northern San Joaquin 

Valley and the Bay Area). San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose, the three major urban centers of the 

Bay Area, all want direct HST service. The Central Valley (including Sacramento) and many 

transportation and environmental organizations strongly prefer the Altamont Pass, whereas much of the 

Bay Area (MTC, San Francisco, San Jose, San Francisco Peninsula, and Monterey Bay Area) agencies 

strongly support the Pacheco Pass. Opposition has been raised to potential impacts for both the Pacheco 

Pass (impacts on the GEA, Pacheco Pass, the Town of Atherton, and Millbrae), and the Altamont Pass 

(impacts on the San Francisco Bay, Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge, East Bay 

regional parks, the City of Fremont, City of Livermore, and the City of Pleasanton). 

Ridership and Revenue: The HST ridership and revenue forecasts done by MTC in partnership with 

Authority concluded that both the Pacheco Pass and Altamont Pass network alternatives have high 

ridership and revenue potential. Distinct differences were found between the Pacheco Pass and Altamont 

Pass for certain markets, and the sensitivity tests help in the selection of alignments alternatives and 

station options within the corridors studied. Nonetheless, while additional forecasts with different 

assumptions may result in somewhat different results, the bottom-line conclusion is expected to remain 

the same: both the Pacheco Pass and Altamont Pass have high ridership potential. This overall 

conclusion is consistent with the previous ridership analysis done for the Authority’s Business Plan (June 

2000). It is the conclusion of this analysis that both the Pacheco Pass and Altamont Pass alternatives 

have high ridership potential and that ridership and revenue do not differentiate between these 

alternatives. 

Capital and Operating Costs: Capital and operating costs are not substantially different between the 

Pacheco Pass and Altamont Pass alternatives that meet the purpose and need of the proposed HST 

system and serve similar termini stations. It is therefore the conclusion of this analysis that capital and 

operating costs do not differentiate between the Pacheco Pass and Altamont Pass alternatives. 
Table S.8-1. Summary of Characteristics and Impacts for the Network Alternatives 

Characteristic/Impacts 

Altamont Pass 

San Francisco & San Jose Termini 

Oakland & San Jose Termini 

San Francisco, Oakland & 

San Jose Termini 

San Jose Terminus 

 San Francisco Terminus 

Oakland Terminus 

Union City Terminus 

San Francisco & San Jose — via SF Peninsula 

 San Francisco, San Jose, Oakland – 

no Bay Crossing 

Oakland & San Francisco – 

via Transbay Tube 

San Jose, Oakland, & San Francisco 

via Transbay Tube 

San Francisco & San Jose Termini 

Figure # (see Chapter 7 of the Program EIR/EIS) 7.2-1 7.2-2 7.2-3 7.2-4 7.2-5 7.2-6 7.2-7 7.2-8 7.2-9 7.2-10 7.2-11 7.2-12 Length (miles) 203.34 182.16 241.16 160.18 191.56 170.86 157.93 213.30 244.70 179.64 199.11 267.53 Number of stations 9 8 11 6 8 7 5 9 11 8 9 7 Capital costs (billions $) $12.7 $10.0 $15.1 $7.7 $11.0 $8.2 $6.0 $12.6 $14.5 $12.9 $14.8 $12.4 Capital costs/mile of alignment (millions) $62.5 $54.9 $62.6 $48.1 $57.4 $48.0 $38.0 $59.1 $59.3 $71.8 $74.3 $46.3 Ridership (millions annual) 87.91 88.01 81.13 94.65 93.88 94.39 83.49 90.75 85.22 95.94 89.62 93.33 Revenue (millions annual) $2,844 $2,881 $2,625 $3,176 $3,127 $3,153 $2,701 $2,743 $2,733 $3,164 $2,884 $3,090 Annual operating costs (millions) $1,099 $1,085 $1,098 $1,076 $1,124 $1,093 $1,073 $1,115 $1,123 $1,106 $1,093 $1,182 Bridge over bay=B Transbay tube=T B — B — B — — B — T T — SF, Oakland, San Jose - # served 2 2 3 1 1 1 0 2 3 1 3 2 International airports SFO/ SJC OAK/ SJC SFO/OAK/ SJC SJC SFO OAK — SFO/ SJC SFO/OAK/ SJC OAK SFO/OAK/ SJC SFO/ SJC Express Train Travel Times (Hours:Min) 

San Francisco - Los Angeles 2:36 — 2:36 — 2:36 — — 2:36 3:17 2:31 2:31 2:38 Oakland - Los Angeles — 2:23 2:23 — — 2:23 — — 2:23 2:23 2:23 — San Jose - Los Angeles 2:19 2:19 2:19 2:19 — — — 2:37 2:19 — 2:19 2:09 San Francisco - Sacramento 1:06 — 1:06 — 1:06 — — 1:06 1:39 0:57 0:57 1:47 Oakland - Sacramento — 0:53 0:53 — — 0:53 — — 0:53 0:53 0:53 — San Jose - Sacramento 0:49 0:49 0:49 0:49 — — — 1:03 0:49 — 0:49 1:18 Union City - Los Angeles — — — — — — 2:13 — — — — — 
Table S.8-1: Continued 

Characteristic/Impacts 

Altamont Pass 

San Francisco & San Jose Termini 

Oakland & San Jose Termini 

San Francisco, Oakland & 

San Jose Termini 

San Jose Terminus 

 San Francisco Terminus 

Oakland Terminus 

Union City Terminus 

San Francisco & San Jose — via SF Peninsula 

 San Francisco, San Jose, Oakland – 

no Bay Crossing 

Oakland & San Francisco – 

via Transbay Tube 

San Jose, Oakland, & San Francisco 

via Transbay Tube 

San Francisco & San Jose Termini 

Union City - Sacramento — — — — — — 0.43 — — — — — 

Farmland (acres) 764.2 761.9 764.2 761.9 757.8 755.5 755.5 757.8 761.9 755.5 761.9 1,372.3 

Prime farmland (acres) 429.1 426.8 429.1 426.8 422.7 420.3 420.3 422.7 426.8 420.3 426.8 663.3 

Floodplains (acres) direct impacts (direct/indirect) 308.3/ 969 218.6/ 720 315.3/ 984 211.6/ 706 270.7/ 817 181.1/ 568 177.6/ 561 317.7/ 891 314.5/ 896 181.1/ 568 218.6/ 720 520.8/ 1,633 

Floodplains/linear mile of alignment 1.52 1.20 1.31 1.32 1.41 1.06 1.12 1.49 1.29 1.01 1.10 1.95 

Streams (linear feet) (direct/indirect) 16,824/ 71,320 17,660/ 76,905 19,814/ 82,951 14,670/ 65,274 15,995/ 67,867 16,831/ 72,451 14,432/ 65,198 17,481/ 70,714 20,273/ 82,171 16,831/ 73,451 17,660/ 76,905 20,276/ 90,572 Waterbodies (lakes + SF bay) (acres) (direct/indirect) 

39.6/ 

154.9 

2.3/ 

7.6 

39.6/ 

154.9 

2.3/ 

7.6 

39.6/ 

154.9 

2.3/ 

7.6 

2.3/ 

7.6 

39.6/ 

154.9 2.3/ 11 38.8/ 243.1 38.8/ 243.1 3.8/ 19.7 

Wetlands (acres) (direct/indirect) 45.9/ 2,526 12.3/ 805 46.3/ 2,594 12.0/ 737 44.4/ 2,259 10.8/ 539 10.7/ 499 44.4/ 2,264 12.4/ 957 33.6/ 1,892 35.1/ 2,158 15.6/ 1,601 Nonwetland waters (linear feet) 16,773 14,032 16,932 13,577 15,947 13,502 13,113 15,947 14,662 13,502 14,032 14,395 Species (special status plants) 56 40 57 39 56 39 38 56 56 40 42 58 Species (special status wildlife) 50 44 50 43 49 44 36 49 50 43 43 53 Cultural resources (number) 151 128 175 93 146 112 88 182 205 114 119 167 Fault Crossings (Active & Potentially Active) 11 7 13 6 9 5 4 10 9 5 7 5 

Crosses Active Fault in Tunnel (Calaveras) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Immediately Adjacent & Parallel to Active Fault (Hayward) No Yes Yes No No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No 

4(f)/6(f) Resources (0-150 feet) 32 29 39 22 24 21 18 30 39 22 30 18 
Table S.8-1: Continued 

Characteristic/Impacts 

Altamont Pass 

San Francisco & San Jose Termini 

Oakland & San Jose Termini 

San Francisco, Oakland & 

San Jose Termini 

San Jose Terminus 

 San Francisco Terminus 

Oakland Terminus 

Union City Terminus 

San Francisco & San Jose 

— via SF Peninsula 

 San Francisco, San Jose, Oakland – 

no Bay Crossing 

Oakland & San Francisco – 

via Transbay Tube 

San Jose, Oakland, & San Francisco 

via Transbay Tube 

San Francisco & San Jose Termini 

Station Location Options 

Transbay Transit Center ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Millbrae/SFO ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Redwood City (Caltrain) ■ ■ ■ ■ Palo Alto (Caltrain) ■ ■ West Oakland/7th Street ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Coliseum/Airport ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Union City (BART) ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Union City (Shinn) ■ ■Fremont (Warm Springs) ■ ■ San Jose (Diridon) ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Gilroy (Caltrain) ■ Pleasanton (I-680/Bernal Rd) ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Tracy (Downtown) ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Modesto (Downtown) ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Briggsmore (Amtrak) ■ Merced (Downtown) ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 

Notes ■ indicates stations served 

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS Summary 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page S-17

Travel Times/Travel Conditions: Either the Pacheco Pass or Altamont Pass would provide quick, 

competitive travel times between northern and southern California. The Pacheco Pass would provide the 

quickest travel times between the south Bay and southern California (10 minutes less than the Altamont 

alternatives serving San Jose via the East Bay [I-880], and 28 minutes less than the Altamont San 

Francisco and San Jose—via San Francisco Peninsula alternative for express service). The Pacheco Pass 

enables a potential station in southern Santa Clara County (at Gilroy or Morgan Hill), which provides 

superior connectivity and accessibility to south Santa Clara County and the three Monterey Bay counties 

and utilizes the entire Caltrain corridor between San Francisco and Gilroy. San Francisco and San Jose 

would be served with one HST alignment along the Caltrain corridor providing the most frequent service 

to these destinations, whereas the most promising Altamont Pass alternatives would require splitting HST 

services (express, suburban express, skip-stop, local, regional) between two branch lines to serve San 

Jose and either San Francisco or Oakland. The Altamont Pass would provide considerably quicker travel 

times between Sacramento/Northern San Joaquin Valley and San Francisco or Oakland than the Pacheco 

Pass (41 minutes less between San Francisco and Sacramento for express service). The Altamont 

alternatives using the East Bay to San Jose would have express travel times about 29 minutes less than 

the Pacheco pass between Sacramento and San Jose, while the Altamont San Francisco and San Jose—

via the San Francisco Peninsula alternative would take 15 minutes less than the Pacheco Pass for this 

market. The Altamont Pass would enable a potential Tri-Valley HST station and a potential Tracy HST 

station, which provide superior connectivity to the Tri-Valley/Eastern Alameda County, Contra Costa 

County, and the Tracy area and provide for the opportunity for shared infrastructure with an improved 

ACE commuter service, although additional infrastructure would be necessary for commuter overlay 

service with associated impacts. The Altamont Pass would have more potential Central Valley stations 

served on the Authority’s adopted first phase for construction between the Bay Area and Anaheim (Tracy 

and Modesto). The travel time for direct service and travel conditions would be significantly different 

between the Altamont Pass alternative to Oakland and San Jose in comparison to the other two 

promising Altamont alternatives and the preferred Pacheco Pass alternatives (which directly serve San 

Francisco and San Jose). The Oakland and San Jose alternative would provide superior travel times, 

connectivity and accessibility to Oakland, Oakland International Airport, and the East Bay, but would not 

directly serve downtown San Francisco, SFO, or the San Francisco Peninsula/Caltrain Corridor. 

Constructability Issues and Logistical Constraints: There are constructability issues and logistical 

constraints with both the Pacheco and Altamont pass alternatives. However, the construction related 

issues and logistical constraints associated with the Altamont Pass alternatives are greater than those for 

the Pacheco Pass. All Altamont Pass alternatives have considerable constructability issues through the 

right-of-way constrained Tri-Valley area (Livermore and Pleasanton) and tunneling/seismic issues in the 

Pleasanton Ridge/Niles Canyon area. All Altamont Pass alternatives have tunneling/seismic issues 

(Calaveras Fault) in the Pleasanton Ridge as well as seismic issues in the East Bay (Hayward Fault). For 

direct service to San Francisco, the most promising Altamont Pass alternatives require a new Bay 

Crossing at Dumbarton, which must also go through the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife 

Refuge and the City of Fremont (which opposes construction of the east-west link through Fremont). For 

the Altamont Pass alternative serving Oakland, the MTC concluded that “development of an East Bay 

option with direct service to San Jose and Oakland would include significant right-of-way risk gaining an 

agreement from UPRR to provide access to Oakland.” For the Altamont Pass east bay link to San Jose, 

Caltrans District 4 has commented that use of the I-880 median would result in significant construction 

stage impacts between Fremont and San Jose. The Pacheco Pass requires coordination and shared-use 

on the Caltrain corridor and would have tunneling and environmental issues through the Pacheco Pass, as 

well as aerial structures and other design refinements and mitigation measures to minimize or avoid 

potential impacts on the GEA. 

Environmental Impacts: The preferred Pacheco Pass alternative would have greater potential impacts 

on acres of farmlands than the most promising Altamont Pass alternatives (1,372 ac vs. 758 – 764 ac) 

and potentially impact more acres of floodplains (521 ac vs. 219-318ac) and more linear feet of streams 

(20,276 linear ft vs. 16,824–17,660 linear ft). This alternative would also potentially result in impacts on 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS Summary 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page S-18

resources within the generally designated GEA and would have the potential to impact wildlife movement. 

The preferred Pacheco Pass alternative would have somewhat less potential impacts for noise and 

vibration and would affect a fewer number of 4(f) and 6(f) resources (14 vs. 34-36) than the most 

promising Altamont Pass alternatives. The differences in the impacts on waterbodies, wetlands, 

nonwetland waters, species, and cultural resources would vary considerably depending upon the 

Altamont Pass alternative. The two Altamont Pass alternatives providing direct service to San Francisco 

would include a new Bay crossing at Dumbarton and would cross areas within the Don Edwards San 

Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge (wetlands and sensitive habitat) and therefore would have 

considerably higher impacts on waters, wetlands, and 4(f) resources than the Pacheco Pass alternative. 

In comparison to these Altamont Pass alternatives, the Pacheco Pass alternative would have considerably 

less potential impacts on waterbodies (3.8 ac vs. 39.6 ac), considerably less potential impacts on 

wetlands (15.6 ac vs. 44.4–45.9 ac), and fewer potential impacts on nonwetland waters (14,395 linear ft. 

vs. 15,947–16,773 linear ft), while having relatively similar potential impacts on the number of special 

status plant species (58 vs. 56), special status wildlife species (53 vs. 49-50), and cultural resources (167 

vs. 151-182). In comparing the Altamont Pass alternative to Oakland and San Jose along the east bay, 

the Pacheco Pass alternative to San Francisco and San Jose would have slightly more potential impacts 

on waterbodies (3.8 ac vs. 2.3 ac), wetlands (15.6 ac vs. 12.3 ac), and nonwetland waters (14,395 linear 

ft vs. 14,032 linear ft), special-status plant species (58 vs. 40), special-status wildlife species (53 vs. 44), 

and cultural resources (167 vs. 128). The Pacheco Pass Alternative would avoid impacts on the Don 

Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge, and mitigation measures would reduce or avoid 

potential impacts on resources within the GEA and in particular along existing Henry Miller Road. 

S.9 Preferred HST Network Alternative 

The Authority and FRA identify as the preferred alternative: 

• Pacheco Pass to San Francisco (via San Jose) for the proposed HST system (see 

Figure S.9-1) 

The Pacheco Pass alternative serving San Francisco and San Jose termini best meets the purpose and 

need for the proposed HST system. Key reasons include: 

1) The Pacheco Pass minimizes impacts on wetlands, waterbodies, and the environment. 

The statewide HST system should provide direct service to Northern California’s major hub airport at 

SFO and major transit, business, and tourism center at downtown San Francisco. The Pacheco Pass 

alternative serving San Francisco and San Jose termini has the least potential environmental impacts 

overall while providing direct HST service to downtown San Francisco, SFO, and the San Francisco 

Peninsula (Caltrain Corridor) and minimizes construction and logistical issues which can lead to delay 

and cost escalation. 

The Pacheco Pass alternatives enable San Francisco, SFO, and the San Francisco Peninsula to be 

directly served without a crossing of the San Francisco Bay. Altamont Pass alternatives requiring a 

San Francisco Bay crossing would have the greatest potential impacts on the San Francisco Bay and 

have high capital costs and constructability issues. The Dumbarton Crossing would also have the 

greatest potential impacts on wetlands and the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife 

Refuge. To implement these alternatives, extensive coordination would be required with the USACE 

under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and the California Coastal Commission and the Bay 

crossing would be subject to the USACE, CDFG, and BCDC permit process. A number of agencies, 

organizations, and individuals have raised concerns regarding to the construction of a HST crossing of 

the San Francisco Bay (see Section S.7.1). 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Bay Area to Central Valley HST P

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS Summary 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page S-19

While a considerable number of comments have raised concerns about potential environmental 

impacts for Pacheco Pass alternatives (in particular relating to potential impacts on the GEA), HST via 

the Pacheco Pass is feasible and preferred because it would result overall in fewer impacts when 

compared to the Altamont Pass alternatives with a Bay crossing. Additionally, the Pacheco Pass 

alternative would include various measures to avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate those environmental 

impacts to the extent feasible and would offer opportunities for environmental improvements along 

the HST right of way that could be accomplished during project design, construction, and operation, 

including through the use of tunnels and aerial structures where appropriate. This contrasts with the 

more uncertain regulatory approvals that would be needed for crossings of San Francisco Bay and 

the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge. Identification of a preferred alternative 

in the Final Program EIR/EIS is required for NEPA compliance. Since the identified preferred 

alternative would have the least overall environmental impacts, it is also identified as the 

environmentally superior alternative for CEQA compliance and the environmentally preferable 

alternative under NEPA. 

2) The Pacheco Pass best serves the connection between the Northern and Southern 

California. 

Operational benefits result in greater frequency and capacity:

San Francisco and San Jose would be served with one HST alignment along the Caltrain corridor 

providing the most frequent service to these destinations, whereas the most promising Altamont Pass 

alternatives would split HST services (express, suburban express, skip-stop, local, regional) between 

two branch lines to serve San Jose and either San Francisco or Oakland—reducing the total capacity 

of the system to these markets. The proposed HST system already has two locations where there 

are branch splits (north of Fresno—to Sacramento and the Bay Area, and south of Los Angeles Union 

Station—to Orange County and the Inland Empire). Avoiding additional branch splits in the HST 

alignment would benefit train operations and service. 

Provides a superior connection between the South Bay and Southern California: 

The Pacheco Pass enables the shortest connection to be constructed between the South Bay and 

Southern California with the quickest travel times between these markets. A southern Santa Clara 

County HST station increases connectivity and accessibility for the South Bay and the three county 

Monterey Bay area. 

Fewer stations between the Major Metropolitan Areas: 

The core purpose of the HST system is to serve passenger trips between the major metropolitan 

areas of California. There is a critical tradeoff between the accessibility of the system to potential 

passengers that is provided by multiple stations and stops, and the resulting HST travel times. 

Additional or more closely spaced stations (even with limited service) would lengthen travel times, 

reduce frequency of service, and the ability to operate both express and local services. The Pacheco 

Pass has the advantage of fewer stops through the high-speed trunk of the system between San 

Francisco or San Jose and Southern California, the most populated regions of the state. 

Between Merced and Gilroy, the HSTs will be maintaining speeds well over 200 mph. The fact that 

there is no population concentrations between Merced and Gilroy along the Pacheco Pass is a positive 

attribute since there are fewer communities and hence fewer community impacts. Additionally, there 

will be no HST station between Gilroy and Merced. As a result, the Pacheco Pass minimizes the 

potential for sprawl inducement as compared with the Altamont Pass. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS Summary 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page S-20

Minimizes Logistical Constraints: 

The Pacheco Pass avoids construction issues and logistical constraints through the Tri-Valley and 

Alameda County. The Tri-Valley PAC has raised serious concerns with all the Altamont Pass 

alternatives regarding land use compatibility and right-of-way constraints and the need for aerial 

structures through the Tri-Valley. All Altamont Pass alternatives have tunneling/seismic issues 

(Calaveras Fault) in the Pleasanton Ridge/Niles Canyon area as well as seismic issues in the East Bay 

(Hayward Fault). Both the City of Fremont and the City of Pleasanton are opposed to HST 

alternatives through these cities because of potential environmental issues, right-of-way constraints, 

and other logistical issues. 

3) The Pacheco Pass best utilizes the Caltrain corridor. 

The Pacheco Pass alternative would enable the early, incremental implementation of the entire 

Caltrain Corridor section between San Francisco, San Jose, and Gilroy. The HST system is 

complementary to Caltrain and would utilize the Caltrain right-of-way and share tracks with express 

Caltrain commuter rail services. Caltrain intends to use lightweight, electrified trains that would be 

compatible with HST equipment. Because it utilizes the Caltrain corridor, environmental impacts 

would be minimized. Utilizing the Caltrain Corridor (between San Francisco and San Jose) allows the 

Authority to maximize the use of local and regional funds dedicated to train service improvements, 

and thereby helping to reduce the need for state funds.

4) The Pacheco Pass is strongly supported by the Bay Area region, cities, agencies, and 

organizations. 

Much of the Bay Area local and regional governments, transportation agencies, and business 

organizations strongly support the Pacheco Pass alternative to San Francisco via San Jose and the 

Caltrain Corridor. As described in Section S.7.1, there is strong local and regional government 

support along the Pacheco Pass alignment throughout the Bay Area. This support is critical towards 

implementing this major infrastructure project through the heavily urbanized Bay Area linking San 

Francisco, San Jose and Gilroy. 

The Central Valley (including Sacramento) and many transportation and environmental organizations 

are united in strongly preferring the Altamont Pass. However, to reach the major markets in the Bay 

Area, the Altamont Pass alternatives must go through Alameda County, including Livermore and 

Pleasanton in the Tri-Valley and Fremont. The Tri-Valley PAC (a partnership that includes the cities 

of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, Danville, San Ramon, and Tracy along with transportation providers 

LAVTA, ACE, and BART) has raised serious concerns regarding right-of-way constraints and the need 

for aerial structures through the Tri-Valley. The Tri-Valley PAC supports HST service through the 

Pacheco Pass and “regional overlay service provided through the Altamont pass.” They believe that 

this option may present the best way of addressing their concerns and delivering optimal HST service 

to the region as a whole. The Alameda County Congestion Management Agency and Alameda 

County Supervisor Scott Haggerty both support the MTC recommendation for the Pacheco alignment 

via the San Francisco Peninsula as the main HST express line between Northern and Southern 

California while also supporting upgraded interregional services between the Bay Area—Sacramento 

and the San Joaquin Valley via the Altamont Pass. The City of Fremont opposes the Altamont Pass 

alternative as does the City of Pleasanton although Pleasanton remains “open” to terminating 

Altamont alternatives in Livermore. The concerns through Alameda County are significant enough 

that the MTC, Alameda County Congestion Management Agency, and Alameda County Supervisor 

Scott Haggerty have requested that “the CHSRA also evaluate an alternative in the Altamont Corridor 

that terminates HSR at a proposed BART Livermore station”—even with the main HST express line 

using the Pacheco Pass. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS Summary 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page S-21

S.10 HST Alignment Alternatives and Station Location Options for the 

Preferred Pacheco Pass Network Alternative 

S.10-1 San Francisco to San Jose: Caltrain Corridor (Shared Use) 

The Program EIR/EIS analyzes one alignment option between San Francisco and San Jose along the San 

Francisco Peninsula that would utilize the Caltrain rail right-of-way and share tracks with express Caltrain 

commuter rail services. 

A. PREFERRED STATION LOCATIONS: 

• Downtown San Francisco Terminus: Transbay Transit Center 

The Transbay Transit Center would offer the greatest connectivity and accessibility to San 

Francisco and the Bay Area, best serve as a regional transit hub, and have the highest ridership 

potential. It also has considerable agency and public support. 

• San Francisco Airport Connector Station: Millbrae (SFO) 

The Millbrae (SFO) HST station supports the objectives of the HST project by providing an 

interface with the northern California hub airport for national and international flights. 

• Mid-Peninsula Station: Continue to investigate both potential sites and work with local agencies 

and the Caltrain JPB to determine whether a mid-peninsula station site should be developed.

The Palo Alto and Redwood City station options would both be multi-modal stations, with similar 

costs, construction issues, right-of-way issues, and potential environmental impacts. The Palo 

Alto station option would have somewhat better connectivity and higher ridership, while the 

Redwood City site is supported by the City of Redwood City. 

San Jose to Central Valley 

Pacheco Pass via Henry Miller Road (UPRR Connection) is the preferred alternative. At the projectlevel, however, the Authority and the FRA will continue to seek and evaluate alignment alternatives 

utilizing the Pacheco Pass that would minimize or avoid impacts to resources in the Grassland 

Ecological Area (GEA). The Authority has committed to acquire agricultural, conservation, and/or 

open space easements for potential impacts in and around the GEA (see Section 3.15). In addition, 

the Authority has committed to acquire easement to protect prime farmland (see Section 3.8). The 

Authority and FRA re-affirm their Statewide Program EIR/EIS decision that there will be no HST 

stations between Gilroy and Merced. 

The Pacheco Pass via Henry Miller Road alternative would provide slightly higher ridership potential, 

provide the fastest travel times and the most direct link between the Bay Area and Southern 

California, and would generally parallel an existing roadway corridor through the environmentally 

sensitive areas that cross from the Bay Area to the Central Valley minimizing potential severance and 

other environmental impacts as compared to the Pacheco via GEA North alternative. 

Preferred Station Locations: 

• Downtown San Jose Terminus: Diridon Station 

Diridon Station is a multi-modal hub that maximizes connectivity to downtown San Jose, San Jose 

International Airport, and the southern Bay Area; would have high ridership potential; and is 

favored by the City of San Jose and the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). 

• Southern Santa Clara County: Gilroy Station (Caltrain) 

Gilroy (Caltrain) Station is the preferred HST station to serve Southern Santa Clara County and 

the Monterey Bay Area. This station would provide the highest accessibility and connectivity for 

these regions and would have the highest ridership potential. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS Summary 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page S-22

Central Valley Alignment: 

UPRR N/S Alternative is the preferred alternative. However, at the project-level, the Authority would 

continue to evaluate the BNSF Alternative because of the uncertainty of negotiating with the UPRR 

for use of some of their right-of-way and would continue investigation of alignments/linkages to a 

potential maintenance facility at Castle AFB.

The UPRR alternative would have high potential ridership, would serve potential downtown station 

sites at Modesto and Merced providing the highest connectivity and accessibility for this part of the 

Central Valley, and would best meet the Authority’s adopted transit-oriented development criteria for 

station locations. 

Preferred Station Locations: 

• Modesto: Downtown Modesto 

The Downtown Modesto Station is the preferred HST station for Modesto because it maximizes 

connectivity and accessibility to downtown Modesto and would best meet the Authority’s adopted 

transit-oriented development criteria for station locations by serving the downtown of this Central 

Valley city. 

• Merced: Downtown Merced 

The Downtown Merced Station is the preferred HST station for the Merced area because it 

maximizes connectivity and accessibility to downtown Merced and would best meet the 

Authority’s adopted transit-oriented development criteria for station locations by serving the 

downtown of this Central Valley city. 

Maintenance Facilities: Castle AFB

There is strong agency and public support in the Merced region for a maintenance facility at Castle 

AFB, the preferred location, whereas the West Oakland site would not serve the preferred Pacheco 

Pass alternative. The determination of the number of maintenance facilities needed for the statewide 

system and their locations will be further defined at the project-level. 

San Francisco Bay Crossings: 

No Bay crossing for the proposed HST system. 

The preferred alternative has no San Francisco Bay crossing. Alternatives with a bay crossing would 

have the greatest potential impacts on the San Francisco Bay and have high capital costs and 

constructability issues. The Dumbarton Crossing would also have the greatest potential impacts on 

wetlands and the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge. To implement these 

alternatives, extensive coordination would be required with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(USACE) under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and 

the California Coastal Commission. Crossing the Bay would be subject to the USACE, California 

Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), and San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development 

Commission (BCDC) permit process. A number of agencies and organizations are opposed to the 

construction of new HST crossings of the San Francisco Bay. 

S.11 Least Environmentally Damaging Preferred Alternative (LEDPA) 

The EPA and USACE have participated in the development of both the Draft and Final Program EIR/EIS 

and, in accordance with the June 12, 2006 Interagency Memorandum of Understanding among federal 

agencies and the Authority for this tier 1, or programmatic, environmental review, were consulted 

concerning the selection of the corridor and alignments most likely to yield the least environmentally 

damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA). The EPA and USACE have concurred that the preferred 

Pacheco Pass Network Alternative serving San Francisco and San Jose Termini discussed above is most 

likely to yield the LEDPA. In addition, the HST Alternative represents the proposed action and the 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS Summary 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page S-23

Authority and FRA have identified the preferred HST Alternative as environmentally preferable under 

NEPA and environmentally superior under CEQA. 

S.12 Next Steps in the Environmental Process 

At the completion of this program environmental process, the Authority expects to be able to certify the 

Program EIR/EIS and make findings for compliance with CEQA, the FRA expects to be able to issue a 

Record of Decision for compliance with NEPA, and both agencies expect to be able to make various 

determinations. Assuming a decision is made to go forward with development of HST, the Authority and 

FRA would focus future project analysis in the study region on alignment and station options selected 

through this program environmental process. Site-specific location and design alternatives for the 

preferred alignment and station options, including avoidance and minimization alternatives, would be fully 

investigated and considered during tier-2, project-level environmental review. 

Preliminary engineering and project-level environmental review would commence in the study region to 

the extent needed to assess site-specific issues and potential environmental impacts not already 

addressed in this Program EIR/EIS. Project-level environmental review would focus on a portion or 

portions of the proposed HST system and would provide further analysis of potential impacts and 

mitigation at an appropriate site-specific level of detail to obtain needed permits and to implement HST 

projects. Also, after completing this program environmental process, the Authority would begin working 

with local governments, transportation agencies, and private parties to identify right-of-way preservation 

needs and protective advance acquisition opportunities consistent with state and federal authority 

requirements. 

S.13 Altamont Pass Project 

The Altamont Pass provides superior travel times between Sacramento/Northern San Joaquin Valley and 

the Bay Area and is strongly supported by the Central Valley. Many of the comments received in support 

of the Altamont Pass are related to its great potential for serving long-distance commuters between the 

Central Valley and the Bay Area. As indicated by the comments received by the Tri-Valley PAC, many of 

the negative impacts associated with construction of HST through the Tri-Valley might be considerably 

reduced by the elimination of the additional tracks needed for HST express services. 

The Authority is pursuing a partnership with “local and regional agencies and transit providers” to 

propose and develop a joint-use (“Regional Rail” and HST) infrastructure project in the Altamont Pass 

corridor—as advocated in MTC’s recently approved “Regional Rail Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area”. 

Regionally provided commuter overlay services would require regional investment for additional 

infrastructure needs and potentially need operational subsidies. The Authority cannot unilaterally plan for 

regionally operated commuter services. 

“Regional Rail” in the Altamont Pass corridor will be pursued as an independent project to satisfy a 

different purpose and need 3 from the proposed HST system, but that would also accommodate HST 

service. The Authority’s pursuit of improved regional rail service in the Altamont Pass corridor is 

dependent upon forming a partnership with the region for the joint-use infrastructure. After a 

partnership is established, the Authority will spearhead (or some combination of lead, collaborate and 

coordinate) future environmental studies and work in partnership with other agencies to secure local, 

state, federal, and private funding to develop a joint-use infrastructure project in the Altamont corridor, 

including recommending that this corridor be added as part of the HST funding package. 

 

3

 As defined in CEQA and NEPA implementing regulations, procedures, and guidelines. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS Summary 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page S-24

The Authority’s analysis suggests that Altamont HST overlay service might terminate in Oakland and/or 

San Jose via the East Bay (see Figure S.9-1), whereas the Regional Rail Plan recommends it cross the 

Bay at Dumbarton. MTC also recommends future study of terminating this service in Livermore. As a 

part of future studies, the Authority will need to work with MTC and other agencies to define the 

appropriate alternatives to be investigated for “Regional Rail”/HST in the Altamont Pass to serve longdistance inter-regional commuters. The Authority is pursuing potential joint-use Altamont Corridor 

“Regional Rail”/HST services and identifying alternatives for further evaluation including: direct service to 

Oakland and/or San Jose or potentially terminating HST service at Livermore (connecting to an extended 

and enhanced BART system). The Authority’s objective is that the infrastructure would be electrified, 

fully grade-separated, and compatible with and shared by HST services. Providing connectivity and 

accessibility to Oakland and Oakland International Airport would be a crucial objective for this project. 

To lay the groundwork for a future “Regional Rail”/HST Altamont Pass project, the Authority will work 

with ACE, SJRRC, San Joaquin County Council of Governments, the Tri-Valley Pac, Alameda County, 

Santa Clara County and others to get the Altamont “Regional Rail”/HST project identified in the update to 

the 2035 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and funds programmed in the 2035 RTP and RTIP. Once 

the Bay Area to Central Valley HST Program EIR/EIS is certified, the Authority will lead a Altamont 

“Regional Rail”/HST Steering Committee that will include MTC, and agencies and transit providers along 

the Altamont corridor project study that will address the Altamont Pass, the East Bay connections and 

stations in partnership, and provide the information necessary for the Authority to undertake an 

environmental study for this project. 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 1-1

1 PURPOSE AND NEED AND OBJECTIVES 

The California High-Speed Rail Authority (Authority) and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) of the 

U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) completed a statewide program environmental impact report/ 

environmental impact statement (EIR/EIS) as the first phase of a tiered environmental review process for 

the proposed California High-Speed Train (HST) system (California High-Speed Rail Authority and Federal 

Railroad Administration 2005). As part of the selected HST Alternative, the Authority and FRA defined a 

broad corridor between the Bay Area and Central Valley for additional review at the program level. This 

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Program EIR/EIS (Program EIR/EIS) further examines this broad corridor 

as the next phase of the tiered environmental review process. 

Additionally, future tiered site-specific project environmental documents will assess the impacts of 

constructing and implementing individual HST projects (i.e., portions of the HST system). 

This chapter provides brief background information about the Authority’s choice to proceed with a 

statewide HST system and its decision to undertake additional programmatic environmental review for 

the Bay Area to Central Valley corridor (Section 1.1), the purpose of the HST system for the Bay Area to 

Central Valley corridor (Section 1.2.1), and the statewide and regional need for the HST system to relieve 

the growing capacity and congestion constraints on intercity travel using existing highway, airport, bus, 

and conventional passenger rail infrastructure (Section 1.2.2). This chapter also describes how the 

proposed HST system would deliver predictable, consistent, and shorter travel times; augment the 

existing transportation infrastructure; and help relieve congestion and capacity constraints with a reliable, 

safe, low-emission, time-efficient travel alternative. 

1.1 Introduction 

The Authority was created pursuant to state legislation in 1996 to develop a plan for the construction, 

operation, and financing of a statewide, intercity high-speed passenger train system offering intercity 

service (California Public Utilities Code § 185000 et seq.). The Authority completed several initial studies 

to assess the feasibility of an HST system in California and to evaluate the potential ridership for a variety 

of alternative corridors and station areas. Based on the results of these studies, the Authority 

recommended evaluation of a proposed HST system as the logical next step in the development of 

California’s transportation infrastructure. The Authority does not have responsibility for transit systems or 

other intercity transportation systems and facilities, such as highways, airports, or conventional 

passenger rail. 

In June 2000, the Authority adopted the final High-Speed Train System Business Plan (Business Plan) 

(California High Speed Rail Authority 2000) for an economically viable 700-mile-long (1,127-kilometer 

[km]-long) HST system. This system would be capable of speeds in excess of 200 miles per hour (mph) 

(322 km per hour [kph]) and would travel on a mostly dedicated system with fully grade-separated tracks 

and with state-of-the-art safety, signaling, and automated train control systems. It would connect and 

serve the major metropolitan areas of California, extending from Sacramento and the San Francisco Bay 

Area through the Central Valley to Los Angeles and San Diego. Such a system would be expected to 

carry a minimum of 88 million passengers annually, representing 66 million intercity trips and 22 million 

intra-regional trips, by the year 2030, and would have revenues in excess of operations and maintenance 

costs. Of this projected HST ridership, 37% of the intercity trips (24.4 million) and 21% of the intraregional trips (4.6 million) are expected to begin or end in the Bay Area to Central Valley study region. 

The Authority envisions seeking possible future federal financial support for the statewide system that 

might be provided through the FRA. The FRA and the DOT have several loan and grant programs that 

might be potential sources of future financial assistance. Several proposals for intercity rail programs 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 1 Purpose and Need and Objectives 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 1-2

have been introduced in the 109th and previous congressional sessions. In addition to possible funding, a 

Rule of Particular Applicability may be required from the FRA to establish safety standards for the 

proposed HST system for operating speeds over 200 mph (322 kph) and for operations in shared-use rail 

corridors. 

Following adoption of the Business Plan, the Authority commenced an environmental review process to 

comply with federal and state laws, in particular the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) 

(42 USC § 4321 et seq.) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Cal. PRC § 21000 et seq.). 

The completed statewide program EIR/EIS, as the first-phase of a tiered environmental review process 

for the proposed HST system, evaluated three alternatives: (1) No-Project, (2) Modal (highway and 

airport expansion), and (3) HST. The HST alternative was selected when the program EIR was certified 

by the Authority via Resolution No. 05-01, signed November 2, 2005, and when FRA issued a Record of 

Decision on November 28, 2005. 

The Authority resolution (No. 05-01) approved the HST system as the program alternative. The HST 

system would use electrically propelled steel-wheel-on-steel-rail trains capable of maximum operating 

speeds of 220 mph (322 kph) on dedicated, fully grade-separated lines. In addition, the HST system 

would use design practices to avoid, minimize, and mitigate potential impacts. 

The resolution also authorized Authority staff to “prepare a separate program-level EIR to identify a 

preferred alignment within the broad corridor between and including the Altamont Pass and Pacheco Pass 

for the HST segment connecting the San Francisco Bay Area to the Central Valley.” This Bay Area to 

Central Valley corridor is generally bounded by (and includes) the Pacheco Pass (State Route 152 [SR152]) to the south, the Altamont Pass (Interstate 580 [I-580]) to the north, the BNSF Corridor to the 

east, and the Caltrain Corridor to the west1

 (Figure 1.1-1). 

The Program EIR/EIS enables the Authority and FRA to evaluate the potential impacts of proposed HST 

system alignment and station locations in the Bay Area to Central Valley corridor, select preferred 

alignments and station locations, and define general mitigation strategies to address any potentially 

significant adverse impacts. 

NEPA requires federal agencies to prepare an EIS for proposed actions that have the potential to cause 

significant environmental impacts. Because of possible funding and regulatory action, the FRA is the lead 

federal agency, working with the Authority as the lead state agency, for the environmental review 

required by NEPA and related statutes. The FRA has further determined that the preparation of a tier 1, 

program-level EIS for the proposed HST system in the Bay Area to Central Valley corridor is the 

appropriate NEPA document because of the conceptual stage of planning and decision-making. Decisions 

related to advancing and ultimately constructing the proposed HST system could constitute major federal 

actions requiring environmental review under NEPA for several federal agencies in addition to the FRA, 

including the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS), and Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The EPA and USACE are cooperating agencies for 

this Program EIR/EIS. 

The proposed HST system in the Bay Area to Central Valley corridor is subject to environmental review 

under CEQA, and the Authority is both the project sponsor and the lead agency for CEQA compliance. 

The Authority has determined that an EIR is the appropriate CEQA document for the project at this 

conceptual stage of planning and decision-making, which includes selecting a preferred alignment and 

station locations. 

 

1 Highway route numbers are provided only as a convenient reference for the reader, not as a limitation on the corridor to be 

considered. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Bay Area to Ce

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 1 Purpose and Need and Objectives 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 1-3

No permits were sought in this phase of environmental review. After the selection of preferred 

alignments and station locations in the Bay Area to Central Valley corridor and completion of this Program 

EIR/EIS, project-specific environmental documentation will be prepared to assess in more detail the 

impacts of reasonable and feasible alignment and station options in this segment of the system. 

Preparation of a program-level document followed by more detailed project-specific documents that tier2

off the program document offers a number of advantages. As described in Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR § 1508.28), FHWA Guidelines (23 CFR Part 771; 52 FR § 32646 

[August 1987]), and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR § 15168[b]), this approach offers the following 

advantages: 

• More exhaustive consideration of impacts and alternatives than would be practical in an individual or 

project-specific EIR/EIS. 

• Consideration of cumulative impacts that might be slighted in a case-by-case analysis. 

• An opportunity for decision-makers to consider broad policy alternatives and program-level mitigation 

strategies at an early stage, when the flexibility to incorporate them is greater. 

• Ability to avoid reconsideration of policy issues in subsequent documents. 

• Early coordination with USACE and EPA to identify avoidance and minimization opportunities that are 

likely to yield or will lead to the selection of a least environmentally damaging practicable alternative 

(LEDPA) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). 

• Less paperwork by encouraging the reuse of data through incorporation by reference in subsequent 

tiered documents. 

The required contents of a program EIR/EIS are the same as those of a project-level document. 

However, the level of detail provided in the two types of documents differs substantially because a 

program-level document analyzes a general conceptual design of the proposed program and alternatives 

rather than providing detailed analysis of a specific project proposal. 

A program EIR/EIS is an informational document intended to analyze and to disclose to the public and to 

public decision-makers the environmental effects and benefits of a proposed program and its alternatives. 

The preparation, circulation, and review of a draft program EIR/EIS provides for the evaluation of 

alternatives, including a no-project/no-action alternative; the assessment of all significant environmental 

impacts; and the opportunity for public input and comments to help inform the decision-making process. 

Evaluating alternatives as required by the FRA ’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (64 

FR § 28545 [May 26, 1999]) and other federal agency NEPA regulations and State CEQA Guidelines helps 

ensure that avoidance and minimization of potential environmental impacts are addressed, and potential 

benefits, costs, and trade-offs of the alternatives are considered. 

This Program EIR/EIS was prepared under the supervision and direction of the FRA and the Authority in 

conjunction with other federal agencies and with input from state and local agencies. It is intended that 

other federal, state, regional, and local agencies use this Program EIR/EIS to review the proposed 

program and develop expectations for the project-level (tier 2) environmental reviews that would follow 

selection of preferred HST alignments and station locations in the Bay Area to Central Valley corridor. 

The preparation of this Program EIR/EIS was coordinated with the concurrent preparation of a Bay Area 

Regional Rail Plan by a coalition of the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART), the 

Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (Caltrain), and 

 

2 Tiering refers to a multilevel approach where a first tier environmental document analyzes general matters and subsequent tiers 

analyze narrower projects/actions, referencing the more general document. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 1 Purpose and Need and Objectives 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 1-4

the Authority. Bay Area voters in 2004 passed Regional Measure 2, which required MTC to adopt a 

Regional Rail Plan. As stipulated in the Streets and Highways Code Section 30914.5 (f), the Regional Rail 

Plan defined the future passenger rail transportation network for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area, 

including an evaluation of the HST options. Information on the Regional Rail Plan is available at 

www.bayarearailplan.info. 

1.2 Purpose of and Need for High-Speed Train System 

Purpose and need are closely linked but subtly different. Need may be thought of as the problem and 

purpose as an intention to address the problem. Purpose describes why the sponsoring agency is 

proposing an action that may have environmental impacts and provides the basis for selecting reasonable 

and practicable alternatives for consideration, comparing the alternatives, and selecting the preferred 

alternative (40 CFR § 1502.13 [“The statement shall briefly specify the underlying purpose and need to 

which the agency is responding in proposing the alternatives including the proposed action”]; see also 

NEPA § 102.). CEQA requires that an EIR identify the project sponsor’s objectives, which are similar to 

the purpose required by NEPA (CEQA Guidelines, CCR, Title 14, § 15124 [b]). The objectives provide 

benchmarks for selecting a reasonable range of alternatives for analysis, as required by CEQA. The 

Authority has responded to this mandate by adopting the objectives and policies described in Section 

1.2.1 below for the proposed HST system to guide compliance with CEQA and NEPA. 

1.2.1 Purpose of High-Speed Train System 

This Program EIS/EIR identifies and fully evaluates alternative HST alignments and stations within and 

related to the Bay Area to Central Valley corridor as part of a statewide HST system. The purpose of 

the Bay Area HST is to provide a reliable high-speed electrified train system that links the 

major Bay Area cities to the Central Valley, Sacramento, and Southern California, and that 

delivers predictable and consistent travel times. Further objectives are to provide interfaces 

between the HST system and major commercial airports, mass transit, and the highway 

network and to relieve capacity constraints of the existing transportation system in a 

manner sensitive to and protective of the Bay Area to Central Valley region’s and California’s 

unique natural resources.

This purpose is consistent with recent expressions of federal transportation policy, most notably the Safe, 

Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (Public L. 

109-59; 119 Stat. 1144 [2005]), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) (Pub. L. 105-

178; 112 Stat. 107 [1998]), and its predecessor the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act 

(ISTEA) (Pub. L. 102-240; 105 Stat. 1914 [1991]), which encourage public transportation investment that 

increases national productivity and domestic and international competition while improving safety and 

social and environmental conditions. Specifically, these policies encourage investments that offer benefits 

such as those listed below. 

• Link all major forms of transportation. 

• Improve public transportation systems and services. 

• Provide better access to seaports and airports. 

• Enhance efficient operation of transportation facilities and service. 

The Authority’s statutory mandate is to plan, build, and operate a HST system that is coordinated with 

the state’s existing transportation network, particularly intercity rail and bus lines, commuter rail lines, 

urban rail transit lines, highways, and airports. The Authority has responded to this mandate by adopting 

the following objectives and policies for the proposed HST system. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 1 Purpose and Need and Objectives 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 1-5

• Provide intercity travel capacity to supplement critically over-used interstate highways and 

commercial airports. 

• Meet future intercity travel demand that will be unmet by present transportation systems and 

increase capacity for intercity mobility. 

• Maximize intermodal transportation opportunities by locating stations to connect with local transit, 

airports, and highways. 

• Improve the intercity travel experience for Californians by providing comfortable, safe, frequent, and 

reliable high-speed travel. 

• Provide a sustainable reduction in travel time between major urban centers. 

• Increase the efficiency of the intercity transportation system. 

• Preserve environmental quality and protect California’s sensitive environmental resources by reducing 

emissions and vehicle kilometers/vehicle miles traveled for intercity trips. 

• Consult with resource and regulatory agencies during the tier 1 environmental review and use all 

available information for identifying the alternative that is most likely to yield the least damaging 

practicable alternative by avoiding sensitive natural resources (e.g., wetlands, habitat areas, 

conservation areas) where feasible. 

• Maximize the use of existing transportation corridors and rights-of-way, to the extent feasible. 

• Develop a practical and economically viable transportation system that can be implemented in phases 

by 2020 and generate revenues in excess of operations and maintenance costs. 

1.2.2 Statewide and Regional Need for High-Speed Train System 

The need for an HST system exists at both the statewide and regional levels. 

A. STATEWIDE NEED3

The capacity of California’s intercity transportation system is insufficient to meet existing and future 

demand, and the current and projected future congestion of the system will continue to result in 

deteriorating air quality, reduced reliability, and increased travel times. The system has not kept 

pace with the tremendous increase in population, economic activity and tourism in the state. The 

interstate highway system, commercial airports, and conventional passenger rail system serving the 

intercity travel market are operating at or near capacity and will require large public investments for 

maintenance and expansion to meet existing demand and future growth over the next 20 years and 

beyond. Moreover, the ability to expand many major highways and key airports is uncertain; some 

needed expansions may be impractical or may be constrained by physical, political, and other factors. 

Simply stated, the need for improvements serving intercity travel in California relates to the following 

issues. 

• Future growth in demand for intercity travel. 

• Capacity constraints that will result in increasing congestion and travel delays. 

• Unreliability of travel stemming from congestion and delays, weather conditions, accidents, and 

other factors that affect the quality of life and economic well-being of residents, businesses, and 

tourism in California. 

• Reduced mobility as a result of increasing demand on limited modal connections between major 

airports, transit systems, and passenger rail in the state. 

 

3

 Also presented in statewide program EIR/EIS (California High-Speed Rail Authority and Federal Railroad Administration 2005). 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 1 Purpose and Need and Objectives 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 1-6

• Poor and deteriorating air quality and pressure on natural resources as a result of expanded 

highways and airports. 

The following sections provide additional information on these factors, emphasizing the transportation 

constraints and capacity limitations relevant to intercity travel in California. 

Travel Demand and Capacity of California’s Intercity Transportation System

Intercity travel in California is forecasted to increase up to 63% between 2000 and 2030, from 550 

million trips to more than 896 million trips (Figure 1.2-1). According to the Department of Finance, 

the state population is projected to increase by more than 13 million people in the same time period, 

from about 34 million to over 48 million people statewide (more than 40% growth). The population 

growth is shown by region in Figure 1.2-2. The highest regional growth rate is projected for the 

Central Valley (79% between 2000 and 2030). However the Inland Empire (Riverside and San 

Bernardino Counties) area of the Los Angeles region is forecast to grow by more than 82% over the 

same period. 

The greatest increase in population is projected to occur in the Southern California region (including 

Los Angeles) (5.6 million between 2000 and 2030). In 2000, Californians made more than 550 

million trips per year between the state’s metropolitan regions, including those in northern and 

southern California and in between. Approximately 188 million of these trips were journeys of at 

least 100 miles (161 km); by 2030, this number is expected to increase to 271 million trips per year. 

Without high-speed trains, more than 3% of all intercity travel and 11% of longer intercity trips 

(those in excess of 100 miles [161 km]) are forecasted to be air travel. At present, the automobile 

dominates intercity travel. Auto trips are expected to account for more than 95% of all intercity 

travel and close to 86% of longer intercity trips in 2030. Also by 2030, almost 50% of the intercity 

travel market between the state’s major metropolitan regions is expected to have a destination within 

the Bay Area to Central Valley study region. 

Much of the intercity travel in California consists of trips of intermediate distance. A statewide 

forecasting model was developed in 2006 (Cambridge Systematics), and Table 1.2-1 shows the 

model results for expected growth in traffic volumes on major highways from 2000 to 2030. These 

trips include more than 339 million annual intercity trips between the Central Valley and other 

metropolitan areas, or 38% of all intercity travel. Travel between the Los Angeles and San Diego 

regions is the second-largest geographic market, with more than 134 million trips per year in 2030. 

Travel between Sacramento and San Francisco represents the third-largest intercity travel market in 

the state, at over 67 million trips per year. In addition, Los Angeles to San Francisco is the busiest 

air travel route in the United States, with 8.6 million in-state air trips and 19 million total air trips in 

2005. The in-state air trips between these two cities represented about 43% of the intercity trips in 

this market via all modes of transportation. 

The demand for air travel has grown dramatically in California and nationwide with a period of 

suppressed demand from the effects of the World Trade Center terrorist attack on September 11, 

2001. Federal, state, and regional transportation plans forecast recovery from this reduction and 

continued growth in air travel over the next 15 years. Table 1.2-2 shows air travel growth between 

the San Francisco Bay Area and southern California from 1992 to 2005, with projections to 2020. 

Overall, annual passenger demand at San Francisco International Airport (SFO) has increased from 

31 million passengers in 1990 to 41 million in 2000; during the same period, the demand at Los 

Angeles International Airport (LAX) increased from 45.8 million to 67 million. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Figure 1.2-1

Intercity Trips

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

2000 2030

Auto

Air

Conv. Rail

 Intercity Trips (in millions)

486

861

18 30 2 8

Source: Cambridge Systematics, 2007
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Figure 1.2-2

Existing and Project California Population

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2006 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

37

40

44

48

52

55

Existing and Projected California Population (in millions)

Source: State of California, Department of Finance, Population Projections by Race/Ethnicity for California 

and its Counties 2002-2050 , Sacramento, California, May 2004
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 1 Purpose and Need and Objectives 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 1-7

Table 1.2-1 

Travel Growth in 20 Years for Intercity Highways 

Major Highways 

Average Daily 

Volume 2000 

Average Daily 

Volume 2030 

Percent Change 

2000–2030 

I-5 between San Diego and Los Angeles 

(Orange County-LA County line) 150,000 306,000 103 

I-5 between Los Angeles and Bakersfield 

(at Santa Clarita) 192,000 308,000 60 

SR-99 in Central Valley 

(north of Bakersfield) 49,000 77,000 56 

US 101 just south of San Jose 137,000 234,000 71 

I-580 between Bay Area and Stockton 

(at Livermore) 138,000 181,000 31 

Source: Cambridge Systematics 2007. 

Table 1.2-2 

Intercity Air Travel between Southern California and San Francisco Bay Area (Annual Enplanements) 

Airport 

Historical Projected Continued Trend 

Percent 

Change 

1992 2000 2005 2020 2005–2020 

Bay Area to Southern California Airports 

San Francisco 1,667,290 1,531,306 2,949,590 5,563,183 89 

Oakland 1,317,960 2,072,328 2,664,380 4,474,188 68 

San Jose 687,680 2,127,815 3,927,300 6,897,516 76 

Bay Area 3,674,922 5,733,449 9,541,270 16,934,887 77 

Southern California To Bay Area Airports 

Los Angeles 1,688,870 2,286,330 4,212,440 6,819,689 62 

John Wayne 588,670 1,766,314 2,281,030 3,422,818 50 

Ontario 559,980 607,930 1,213,240 1,881,429 55 

Burbank 705,110 1,066,844 1,834,560 2,582,595 41 

Long Beach 130,300 0 - 

So. California 3,672,930 5,727,418 9,541,270 14,706,531 54 

All Travel 7,345,860 10,856,550 19,082,540 31,641,418 62 

Source: FAA Terminal Area Forecasts and U.S. Department of Transportation O&D Market Database. 

Note: These data represent all air trips, including both in-state and out-of-state (i.e., connecting) travelers and differ from the 

HST ridership forecasting model, which includes only in-state travelers. 

The MTC projects that air travel at SFO will increase to 61 million passengers in 2030—an increase of 

65% over 30 years, with an associated increase in airport congestion.4

 Estimates for LAX indicate 

that regional demand for flights will increase by about 54% between 1996 and 2015 (LAX Master 

Plan Supplement to the Draft EIS/EIR 2003). The Southern California Association of Governments 

(SCAG) regional transportation plan indicates that the practical physical capacity of LAX with its 

existing configuration is 78 million annual passengers (Southern California Association of 

Governments 2001). 

 

4

 Regional Airport Plan, MTC, 2000 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 1 Purpose and Need and Objectives 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 1-8

Population growth and increasing tourism in California place severe demands on the already 

congested transportation system serving the state’s major metropolitan areas. As described in the 

regional transportation plans for areas that would be served by the proposed HST system, the 

highways and airports serving key cities are operating at capacity, and plans for expansion will not 

keep pace with projected growth over the next 20–40 years. The volume of traffic on major 

highways and the number of enplanements at key airports are presented in Tables 1.2-1 and 1.2-2. 

Figure 1.2-3 illustrates the major routes and airports used for intercity travel between the markets 

potentially served by the HST system. 

According to the FAA, 

Delays at San Francisco International and other major airports are expected to worsen 

within the next decade unless capacity is increased by building new runways or with other 

improvements, according to a landmark federal study released yesterday. For the first 

time, the Federal Aviation Administration tallied the number of flights that 31 major U.S. 

airports can accommodate in good and bad weather, when air-traffic controllers must use 

radar to ensure that planes are properly separated. The FAA found that seven major 

airports, including San Francisco International, will experience "significant delays" within 

the next 10 years as air travel surges to 1 billion passengers annually. (San Francisco 

Chronicle, April 26, 2001). 

Airports at or nearing capacity, like SFO, will likely be forced to reduce air service on intercity travel 

markets with high levels of service (such as between LAX and SFO). As stated by John L. Martin, 

director of San Francisco International Airport: 

The airport is now focused on increasing long-haul and international service, because this 

type of service translates to larger aircraft with more passengers per plane, but fewer 

flights. That, along with the implementation of a new radar landing procedure, allows SFO 

to make more efficient use of its limited runway capacity. The ‘smart growth’ program at 

SFO has resulted in a 12% growth in passenger traffic in the first 11 months of 2004, while 

the number of flight operations has grown by only 5.1%. Larger planes with higher 

passenger loads. (San Francisco Chronicle, February 8, 2005). 

Travel Time 

Travel time is the time spent in a highway vehicle, in an aircraft, or on a train for a specific point-topoint trip. Total travel time includes the time spent getting to a station or an airport, waiting for the 

next scheduled train or flight, getting to the boarding area, checking and retrieving luggage, getting a 

rental car or taxi, and getting to the final destination. Total travel time is an important economic 

factor for business travel because it is a business cost that affects worker productivity and scheduling 

of business activities. Table 1.2-3 shows the approximate total travel time in 2000 and the projected 

total travel time in 2030 for auto, air, and rail between various city pairs, based on the ridership 

analysis completed for the HST forecasting model (Cambridge Systematics 2007), including 

information collected from regional transportation planning agencies, Caltrans, and current air and 

conventional rail schedules. 

Projected increases in automobile travel time are largely caused by increased travel demand and 

resulting congestion on highways used for intercity travel, and programmed and funded 

improvements would not measurably change future conditions. Although Amtrak has proposed 

improvements that could reduce conventional rail travel time over the next 20 years, they are not 

programmed or funded. There are some capacity improvements funded for the Central Valley and 

southern California, but these are only basic enhancements that will do more to improve reliability 

than travel time. The 20-year 10-billion-dollar Amtrak plan includes adding 21 intercity roundtrips, 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Figure 1.2-3

Major Intercity Travel Routes and Airports

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 1 Purpose and Need and Objectives 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 1-9

adding capacity, increasing speeds, and enhancing grade crossing safety. These improvements will 

benefit all rail users, including both freight and commuter traffic. 

Table 1.2-3 

Estimated Total Travel Times (Door to Door) between City Pairs 

by Auto, Air, and Rail Peak Conditions 

City Pair 

Auto 

2000 

Auto 

2030 

Air 

2000 

Air 

2030a

Conventional 

Rail 

2000b

Los Angeles downtown 

to San Francisco downtown 6:28 6:50 3:30 3:38 10:05c

Fresno downtown 

to Los Angeles downtown 3:32 3:41 3:17 3:24 5:46d

Los Angeles downtown 

to San Diego downtown 2:37 2:41 2:51 3:01 3:26 

Burbank (Airport) to San Jose 

downtown 5:31 5:54 2:46 2:43 9:46e

Sacramento downtown 

to San Jose downtown 2:29 2:32 3:33 3:33 4:06 

a

 Represents the same level of service observed in 2005, compiled from the Federal Aviation 

Administration data from the 10 percent ticket sample combined with wait, terminal, access and 

egress times developed from the California High-Speed Rail ridership forecasting model (Cambridge 

Systematics 2007). 

b

 Conventional rail assumptions for travel times and wait and terminal times are the same for 2000 and 

2030. Access and egress times may vary but in practice do not vary significantly between 2000 and 

2030. 

c

 Based on October 27, 2003, San Joaquin schedule, which would require bus connections from 

Los Angeles to Bakersfield and from Emeryville to San Francisco. The travel time with the Coast 

Starlight from Los Angeles to San Francisco would be 13:05. 

d

 Based on October 27, 2003, San Joaquin schedule, which would require bus connections from 

Los Angeles to Bakersfield. 

e

 Based on October 27, 2003, San Joaquin schedule, which would require bus connections from 

Burbank to Bakersfield and from Stockton to San Jose. 

Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff 2003 and Cambridge Systematics 2007. 

Reliability

Reliability is the delivery of predictable, consistent, travel times that remain the same over a period of 

years. As discussed above, roadway congestion, limited airport capacity, track conflicts between 

passenger rail and freight rail, and a growing intercity travel market are adversely affecting the travel 

time reliability of air, conventional passenger rail, and automobile travel. Weather-related events are 

an additional source of disruption and delay that affect transportation reliability. Based on current 

performance and projected congestion levels, the reliability of highway and air travel will continue to 

worsen in future years. 

From 1990 to 2020, the Bay Area regional transportation plan (RTP) forecasts a 249% increase in 

average daily vehicle hours of delay. The Bay Area may be an extreme case, but there are many 

causes of increased highway congestion rates all over California. For example, accidents, road work, 

cars stranded along the roadside, or a routine traffic violation stop can create a bottleneck effect, 

potentially delaying commuters for miles. Poor weather conditions (rain, wind, and dense Central 

Valley fog) also have a negative effect on the reliability of highway travel times. Rain and wind can 

make the roads dangerously slick, increasing accident rates. Snow and icy weather make roads 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 1 Purpose and Need and Objectives 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 1-10

conditions even worse, especially in heavily traveled areas. Fog, haze, and glare at times can distract 

drivers or cause them to slow down. 

Weather conditions are also a key factor in flight delay. For instance, during poor weather conditions 

at SFO as of 1999, more than 25% of flight departures were delayed by more than 1 hour and 10% 

were delayed by more than 2 hours. By contrast, when weather conditions were good, 83% of 

flights arrived on time. The percentages of delayed arrivals and departures are illustrated in 

Figure 1.2-4 for each of the major California airports serving the intercity travel market. Some 

airlines adjust their schedules to achieve on-time arrivals even if departures are delayed; some 

airlines have increased their scheduled flight times between high-demand city pairs such as LAX and 

SFO to maintain their on-time arrival statistics in the face of potentially increasing delays (Office of 

Inspector General 2000). Weather also results in flight cancellations. As noted by the San Francisco 

Business Times, “During good weather, SFO can accept between 60 and 65 aircraft per hour. But fog 

or rain causes delays at SFO on average every third day, reducing the number of landings to about 

30 per hour.” (San Francisco Business Times, December 12, 2003, Eric Young). 

Aircraft delays cost both the airlines and the traveling public time and money, and the FAA has 

identified the reduction of airport delay nationwide as one of its highest priorities. Data from the 

DOT’s Air Travel Consumer Report show SFO and LAX ranking among the worst of major airports in 

the country in terms of delay (U.S. Department of Transportation 2003). Airport delays are a 

function of capacity, weather conditions, and safety conditions. When demand at an airport exceeds 

the capacity on the airfield at that time, flights are delayed until they can be safely accommodated. 

Delayed flights sometimes compound problems for other flights and can result in cancelled flights. 

Because the FAA Ground Delay Program holds flights at their point of departure until the destination 

airport can accept the demand, and because short flights (e.g., SFO to LAX) are more easily adjusted 

than longer flights (e.g., East Coast or Midwest to West Coast), short flights are more likely to 

experience delays or capacity reductions. Consequently, intercity air travel within California can be 

hard hit by delays related to total airport demand. 

Safety

Projected growth in the movement of people and goods in California by auto, air, and rail over the 

next two decades underscores the need for improved travel safety. With more and more vehicles on 

the intercity highways, the potential for accidents increases. The California Department of Highway 

Safety and Motor Vehicles publishes an annual summary of accident data for state highways. As 

shown in Table 1.2-4, there were a total of 4,094 fatalities and 203,386 nonfatal injuries on California 

highways in 2004, which corresponds to a fatality rate of 1.25 per 100 million vehicle miles of travel 

(VMT). 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Figure 1.2-4

Airport Delay—1999*

Percentage of Departures Delayed - 1999 

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 1 Purpose and Need and Objectives 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 1-11

Table 1.2-4 

State of California Vehicular Accident Statistics 

California Statistics 1995 2000 2004 

Fatal Collisions 3,636 3,331 3,701 

Persons Killed in Collisions 4,165 3,730 4,094 

Injury Collisions 196,569 198,348 203,386 

Persons Injured in Collisions 304,941 303,023 302,357 

Population (millions) 32.063 34.480 36.591 

Motor Vehicle Miles of Travel 

(millions) 274,840 306,371 328,255 

Mileage Death Rate * 1.52 1.22 1.25 

* Number of persons killed per 100 million miles of travel.

Source: 2004 Annual Report of Fatal and Injury Motor Vehicle Traffic Collisions, Statewide 

Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS), California Highway Patrol, 2004.

Correspondingly, while the national vehicular fatal crash rates per vehicle mile and per total 

population improved between 1995 and 2005, the number of national vehicular fatalities increased 

over the same time period from 37,241 to 39,189, as shown on Table 1.2-5. 

Commercial airline travel accident/injury rates nationally have remained fairly constant over the last 

10 years. In 1999, the number of accidents for commercial airlines was 0.0077 per one million miles 

(1.6 million km) flown; this represents 0.0003 fatalities per 1 million miles flown (National 

Transportation Safety Board 2000). 

Table 1.2-5 

National Vehicular Crash Statistics 

National Statistics 2005 2000 1995 

Motor Vehicle Fatal Crashes 39,189 37,526 37,241 

Traffic Crash Fatalities vehicle 

occupants and motorcycle riders 37,594 36,348 35,291 

 Vehicle Miles Traveled (Billions) 2,965 2,747 2,423 

 Resident Population (Thousands) 296,410 282,193 262,803 

Rates: Fatalities 

 Fatalities per 100 Million Vehicle Miles 

 Traveled 1.47 1.53 1.73 

 Fatalities per 100,000 Population 14.66 14.86 15.91 

Source: Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), National Center for Statistics and 

Analysis, 2006. 

Table 1.2-6 shows a comparison of the number of fatal accidents by mode for the United States. 

HSTs in Europe and Japan have not reported any fatalities at high speeds and are not shown in the 

table. As shown in the table, there were 12 fatalities (railroad employee and passenger fatalities only) 

associated with passenger railroad operations (intercity and commuter railroad services) across the 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 1 Purpose and Need and Objectives 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 1-12

United States in 2005. For the years 2000–2005, rail passenger fatalities ranged from 0 to 12. The 

corresponding fatality rate per 100 million miles ranged from 0.00 to 0.08. (Federal Railroad 

Administration 2007.) 

As shown in Table 1.2-6, the average passenger fatality rates from 2000 to 2005 for U.S. air carrier, 

highway, and railroad were 0.02, 0.55, and 0.02 passenger fatalities per 100 million passenger miles, 

respectively. It should be noted that the U.S. railroad fatalities occurred on a system that is not fully 

grade-separated, but the zero fatalities on the European and Japanese rail systems are on fully 

grade-separated systems. 

Table 1.2-6 

National Transportation Fatalities by Mode 

 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Average 

U.S. Air Carriera 

Passenger Fatalities 92 531 0 22 14 22 114 

Passenger Miles (100 Millions) 7,008 6,585 6,505 6,742 7,523 7,951 7,052 

Passenger Fatalities/100 Million 

Passenger Miles 

0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 

Highway (total) 

 Passenger Fatalities 36,348 36,440 37,375 37,341 37,304 37,594 37,067 

Passenger Miles (100 Millions) 64,555 65,730 67,116 67,915 69,631 69,678 67,437 

Passenger Fatalities/100 Million 

Passenger Miles 

0.56 0.55 0.56 0.55 0.54 0.54 0.55 

Railroad (totalb) 

Passenger Fatalities 0 1 7 1 1 12 4 

Passenger Miles (100 Millions) 141.8 152.9 148.9 153.8 152.3 155.7 151 

Passenger Fatalities/100 Million 

Passenger Miles 

0.00 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.02 

Notes 

a

 Carriers operating under 14 CFR 121, all scheduled and nonscheduled service. Since Mar. 20, 1997, 14 CFR 121 include 

aircraft with 10 or more seats that formerly operated under 14 CFR 135. 

b Passenger fatalities caused by collisions and other train accidents.

Sources 

Air: 

Internet site www.ntsb.gov/aviation (April 2007). 

Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Internet site http://www.bts.gov/xml/air_traffic/src/datadisp.xml (April 2007). 

Highway: 

Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), National Center for Statistics Analysis (April 2007). 

1975-2004: Ibid., Traffic Safety Facts 2004, DOT HS 809 775 (Washington, DC: 2005), table 4, Internet site http://wwwnrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/TSFAnn/TSF2003F.pdf (February 16, 2006). 

 

Railroad: 

Federal Railroad Administration, Office of Safety Analysis, Internet site http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov (March 2007). 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 1 Purpose and Need and Objectives 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 1-13

Modal Connections 

Limited connections exist between intercity travel facilities (primarily airports) and the extensive 

regional urban and commuter transit systems in the state. While some major connections with 

existing rail have been completed, such as the extension of the BART system to SFO, other airports 

remain entirely unconnected to the local and regional transit systems. Where connections exist 

(except for BART), the connections are cumbersome, often involving multiple transfers and long 

waits. 

Air Quality and Protection of Natural Resources 

The Clean Air Act (CAA) makes transportation conformity the affirmative responsibility of the DOT 

and the Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs). Transportation conformity addresses strategies 

for the attainment and maintenance of air quality standards contained in the California State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) used to evaluate transportation alternatives, including the no-project/noaction alternative. Figure 1.2-5 shows the counties in California designated as nonattainment areas. 

Maintaining air quality is one goal of the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and the 

various RTPs. Metropolitan areas will continue to be challenged to reduce emissions to acceptable 

levels from a growing number of vehicles and to maintain air quality standards by encouraging more 

efficient use of land resources, improving mobility, and providing alternative transportation facilities 

and services. Policies aimed at reducing the demand for trips in single-occupant vehicles are integral 

to all transportation plans and programs to help areas presently in nonattainment conform to federal 

air quality standards. 

One statewide strategy adopted in the SIP is development of multiuse corridors with designated lanes 

for high-occupancy vehicles (HOVs), transit, and rail alternatives. Meeting federal and state air 

quality standards over the next 20–40 years will also require reductions in the total distance traveled 

by vehicles, integration of land use and transportation planning and development, development of 

transportation demand strategies, implementation of operational improvements, and use of new 

technologies that improve transportation efficiencies and provide a transportation alternative to the 

single-occupant automobile. For example, in 2000, 89% of intercity trips in California of a distance of 

at least 100 miles (161 km) were made by automobile. 

In addition to improving and maintaining the state’s air quality, another critical need is to protect and 

preserve natural resources by limiting potential impacts related to expanding transportation systems. 

Key resources include wetlands and waterways, habitat areas for sensitive species of plants and 

animals, wildlife migration corridors, and agricultural lands. These natural resources have been 

subject to both direct and indirect impacts as the population has increased and growth has occurred 

in the less developed areas of the state. Avoidance of sensitive natural resources is a guiding 

criterion in the environmental review process. Various agencies, including USACE, USFWS, and the 

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) may have jurisdiction to impose specific restrictions 

on the use of wetlands and encroachment into wildlife habitat areas, wildlife migration corridors, and 

conservation areas important to the protection of threatened or endangered species. The 

environmental analysis process includes consideration of alternatives that offer opportunities to 

protect and enhance sensitive natural resources and improve existing conditions. 

Another priority is the conservation of energy, and particularly the reduction in demand for 

petroleum. The need to reduce per-passenger energy consumption is important now and is 

becoming ever more important as energy use depletes reserves, drives up the cost of fuels or 

energy, and affects air quality. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 1 Purpose and Need and Objectives 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 1-14

B. REGIONAL NEED 

The Bay Area to Central Valley link is an essential component of the proposed statewide HST system. 

More than 42% of the intercity travel market forecast for 2030 between the state’s major 

metropolitan areas and more than 62% of the projected intercity ridership of the proposed statewide 

HST system would have a trip-end (either origin or destination) in the Bay Area to Central Valley 

study region. In addition to the needs of this region as part of a statewide system (as described 

earlier) there are similar needs within the Bay Area to Central Valley that are described below. 

Regional Growth

Today, the nine-county Bay Area is home to nearly 7 million people and supplies more than 3 million 

jobs. By 2050, the region's population is anticipated to grow by more than 40% for a total of 10 

million people. Recent projections for how the region will grow, adopted by the Association of Bay 

Area Governments, presume a shift to more compact growth patterns, with about 60% of the 

population growth taking place in the major cities and the inner suburbs that ring the Bay. This shift 

still leaves 40% of the growth to continue to occur in the Bay Area's outer ring of more distant 

suburbs and agricultural lands. 

This population growth will put tremendous pressure on the existing transportation network, as can 

be seen by the substantial growth that is projected in specific Bay Area transportation corridors 

(Figure 1.2-6). The peak travel periods are expected to encompass many more hours of the day. For 

example, MTC's 2000 San Francisco Bay Crossing Study projected the Bay Bridge peak period to 

more than double from 1.5 hours in 2000 to 3.5 hours by 2020. A growing number of trips made 

throughout the day for shopping, education, recreation, and other activities are also anticipated. 

While the Bay Area continues to grow at a steady rate, the Sacramento and Central Valley areas are 

experiencing a true population boom. San Joaquin County, just east of the Altamont Pass, will lead 

the way with a more than 200% increase in population by 2050 (Figure 1.2-7). This population 

growth and the growing interconnectedness of the region's economies are creating a surge in travel 

through the "gateways" that connect the Bay Area with the rest of northern California. 

As shown in Figure 1.2-8, the greatest increase in travel growth into the Bay Area over the next 25 

years is anticipated to come from areas to the east. By 2030, commutes from Sacramento Valley will 

grow by more than 200% and from the San Joaquin Valley by 112%. 

Not only is the population increasing rapidly in these regions, but the growth is taking place in the 

form of segregated and dispersed land uses, which rely on individual vehicles for most trips. Without 

stronger transit systems leading to the main Central Valley cities and connecting them to each other, 

there will be little chance for the cities to move toward compact transit-oriented development or to 

satisfy the Bay Area planning framework. 

Regional Congestion

The Bay Area already experiences the second-worst traffic congestion in the country, after 

Los Angeles. Congestion is expected to worsen over the next 25 years, especially in existing hotspots 

(Figure 1.2-9). Congestion often seems to come "out of nowhere" but there is actually a clear 

cause—as the volume of traffic exceeds a road’s capacity, the speed of traffic decreases exponentially 

rather than gradually. As Figure 1.2-10 illustrates, once the traffic slows to 5 or 10 mph, the number 

of cars a road can accommodate in an hour (its "vehicle throughput") also decreases. With more 

people trying to get through a road that now carries fewer cars, the traffic delays increase 

exponentially. Speeds degrade to stop-and-go conditions, pollution emissions worsen, and vehicles 

become less fuel efficient, making the environmental impacts of traffic more severe. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Figure 1.2-5

2006 Area Designations for National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards—Ozone
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Figure 1.2-6

Regional Trips—High Growth Corridors 

(2000—2030)
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Figure 1.2-7

Population Growth
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Figure 1.2-8

Bay Area Gateways
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Figure 1.2-9

Vehicle Hours
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Figure 1.2-10

Freeway Capacity

 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 1 Purpose and Need and Objectives 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 1-15

The combination of significant population growth, dispersed development patterns (requiring a car 

for most trips), highway facilities that cannot keep pace with traffic demands, and large increases in 

interregional commuting, has and will continue to worsen congestion levels and the associated 

environmental and economic impacts. 

Economic Implications

The adverse economic impacts of congestion and inadequate transportation/transit access are 

already apparent. The 150,000 daily hours of Bay Area commute congestion had an estimated cost of 

$2.6 billion in 2003 alone. This congestion would have been about 50% worse if not for the region's 

public transit system. 

When transportation access to urban and suburban centers becomes too difficult, employers are 

likely to move jobs to areas where land prices are lower and workers' commutes might be shorter. 

Without better passenger rail access, major job growth will continue to decentralize and move to the 

Central Valley, and beyond. 

Environmental Implications 

Without an expanded rail network, the natural environment may also continue to suffer. More than 

400,000 acres (ac) of land in the Bay Area are at risk from development. Promoting development in 

walkable communities near HST and other transit stations offers the best opportunity for taking 

development pressure off open space and farms. Demand for an additional 550,000 homes near 

transit in the Bay Area by 2030 is anticipated, but transit-oriented development only functions well 

when transit service is frequent and reliable enough that residents can reduce the number of vehicles 

they own and the number of car trips they take. 

An additional growing environmental concern is global climate change, and the transportation sector 

is responsible for about 40% of California's greenhouse gas emissions, and up to 50% in the Bay 

Area. These emissions are directly proportional to the amount of fuel burned, so offering effective 

transportation choices that can reduce driving will be critical for cutting these emissions. 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 2-1

2 ALTERNATIVES 

This chapter describes the network and alignment alternatives and station location options considered for 

the proposed California HST system in the Bay Area to Central Valley study region. This Program EIR/EIS 

is a program-level environmental document, and the analyses herein are intended to define broad 

differences between alternatives. The level of detail for alternatives is conceptual or general rather than 

site-specific (40 CFR § 1508.28; 14 CCR § 15385). Subsequent project-level environmental documents 

and analyses would assess site-specific engineering and environmental impacts for alternatives selected 

in this Program EIR/EIS. 

The alternatives discussed in this chapter were developed considering previous studies defining the 

project and information gathered in the scoping process. All alternatives that have been considered in 

this Program EIR/EIS process are described in this chapter, including those rejected from further 

consideration and the basis for their rejection. The No Project/No Action (No Project), HST Network, and 

HST Alignment Alternatives are described in detail in this chapter, and their development is summarized. 

Several terms specific to the project are defined below. See Chapter 15, “Glossary,” for definitions of 

technical and other terms. 

• Study Region: Bay Area to Central Valley region encompassing all six study corridors. 

• No Project Alternative: Represents the region’s (and state’s) transportation system (highway, air, 

and conventional rail) as it is today and with implementation of programs or projects that are in 

regional transportation plans and have identified funds for implementation by 2030. 

• Study Corridors: Six linear geographic belts or bands being considered for the HST system that 

connect different parts of the study region. They are distinct in terms of land use, terrain, and 

construction configuration (mix of at-grade, aerial structure, and tunnel sections) and generally follow 

the route of a transportation facility. 

• HST Network Alternatives: Represent different ways to implement the HST system in the study 

region with combinations of HST Alignment Alternatives and station location options. These HST 

Network Alternatives are identified in Chapter 2 and compared in Chapter 7. 

• HST Alignment Alternatives: General location for HST tracks, structures, and systems for the HST 

system between logical points within study corridors; they are generally configured along or adjacent 

to existing rail transportation facilities. These HST Alignment Alternatives are described in Chapter 2, 

analyzed in Chapter 3, and compared and used to create HST Networks in Chapter 7. 

• HST Alignment Segment: A portion of an alignment (often defined to distinguish subalternatives) 

that can be combined with other segments to form an alignment. 

• Station Location Options: General locations that represent the most likely HST stations based on 

current knowledge, consistent with the objective to serve the state’s major population centers. 

2.1 Summary of Alternatives 

This section provides a brief synopsis of the alternatives analyzed by the Authority and the FRA in this 

Program EIR/EIS. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 2 Alternatives 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 2-2

2.1.1 No Project Alternative 

The No Project Alternative represents the state’s transportation system (highway, air, and conventional 

rail) as it is today and would be after implementation of programs or projects that are currently in 

regional transportation plans and have identified funds for implementation by 2030. 

2.1.2 High-Speed Train Network and Alignment Alternatives 

HST Network Alternatives represent different ways to implement the HST system in the study region to 

better understand the implications of selecting certain HST Alignment Alternatives and station location 

options. The HST system would continue outside the study region to the major metropolitan areas in the 

state, as described in the statewide program EIR/EIS (California High-Speed Rail Authority and Federal 

Railroad Administration 2005). The Authority and the FRA developed a range of potential alignment 

alternatives and station location options in the study region (Figure 1.1-1). Informed by previous studies 

and the scoping process, the Authority and the FRA evaluated the potential HST Alignment Alternatives 

and identified those that best meet the project purpose and need, are reasonable, and are feasible. 

The proposed HST system selected in the statewide program EIR/EIS (California High-Speed Rail 

Authority and Federal Railroad Administration 2005) and further analyzed in this Program EIR/EIS is 

electrified steel-wheel-on-steel-rail dedicated service, with a maximum speed of 220 mph (350 kph). A 

fully grade-separated, access-controlled right-of-way would be constructed, except where the system 

would be able to share tracks at lower speeds with other compatible passenger rail services. Sharedtrack operations would use existing rail infrastructure in areas where construction of new separate HST 

facilities would not be feasible. Although shared service would reduce the flexibility and capacity of HST 

service because of the need to coordinate schedules, it would also result in fewer environmental impacts 

and a lower construction cost. 

2.2 Chapter Organization 

The remainder of this chapter is organized into the following three sections: 

• Section 2.3 describes the development of the proposed HST system. 

• Section 2.4 describes the No Project Alternative. 

• Section 2.5 describes the HST Alternatives considered in this Program EIR/EIS, including the HST 

Network Alternatives, the HST Alignment Alternatives, station location options, and maintenance 

facility location options. Alignment alternatives and station location options considered and rejected 

are also described. 

2.3 Development of Alternatives 

This section describes the process used to evaluate conceptual alternatives presented in previous 

feasibility studies and identified through the scoping process for the HST system, leading to the set of 

HST Network Alternatives and HST Alignment Alternatives that are analyzed in this Program EIR/EIS. 

Key criteria used to distinguish among alternatives are described in Chapter 1, “Purpose and Need and 

Objectives,” and include connectivity, right-of-way constraints and compatibility, ridership potential, 

constructability, and environmental impacts. 

2.3.1 Background 

Since 1994, three planning and feasibility studies and a statewide program EIR/EIS have been completed 

under the direction of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the former California 

Intercity High Speed Rail Commission (Commission), and the Authority. The specific scopes of work of 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 2 Alternatives 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 2-3

the feasibility studies differed, but they all focused on identifying potential HST technologies and corridors 

and broadly evaluated their feasibility. The three feasibility studies culminated in the Authority’s final 

business plan (Business Plan) for an economically viable HST system that would serve major metropolitan 

areas of California (California High-Speed Rail Authority 2000). Also, in 1997, the FRA published HighSpeed Ground Transportation for America, a national study examining the commercial feasibility of new 

high-speed ground transportation systems (Federal Railroad Administration 1997). This commercial 

feasibility study uniformly applied economic principles to weigh likely investment needs, operating 

performance, and social benefits of different types of train services in regional travel markets. The 

Authority followed these principles and in the Business Plan defined a practical approach to construct, 

operate, and finance an HST system that would yield solid financial returns to the state and provide 

potentially dramatic transportation benefits to all Californians. A preferred alignment and potential 

station locations were selected for most of the proposed statewide HST system as part of the final 

statewide program EIR/EIS (California High-Speed Rail Authority and Federal Railroad Administration 

2005). However, between the San Francisco Bay Area and Central Valley, a broad corridor was identified 

for further evaluation. 

These environmental, planning, and feasibility studies considered environmental constraints and potential 

impacts, with the objective of avoiding or minimizing impacts on sensitive resources where possible. 

Most of the study corridors considered follow existing highways or railroad lines, particularly in urban 

areas, to avoid or minimize environmental impacts. Many of the alignments for corridor and station 

locations emerged from regional and local agency input. Potential station locations were identified for 

operational and ridership forecasting purposes, and alternative sites were considered as part of the 

corridor evaluation. However, specific station sites were not selected. The studies were done 

consecutively, such that each subsequent study benefited from and built on previous work to further 

refine and develop potential station location options. The scope, timing, and products of each of the 

three studies, the Business Plan, and the statewide program EIR/EIS are described below. The 

relationship between the feasibility studies is illustrated in Figure 2.3-1. 

A. LOS ANGELES TO BAKERSFIELD PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING FEASIBILITY STUDY (1994) 

In 1994, Caltrans completed a study that analyzed the feasibility of constructing an HST system 

across the Tehachapi Mountains in southern California. The Tehachapi Mountains is one of the 

largest physical constraints (if not the largest physical constraint) to the development of a statewide 

HST network. The study produced an evaluation of the various HST technologies, as well as 

engineering drawings, cost estimates, and preliminary environmental analysis for potential alignments 

traversing the Tehachapi Mountains. The study also produced drawings and cost estimates for 

potential stations, developed operating plans, and estimated travel times for this segment of a 

statewide system. The study is documented in the Los Angeles–Bakersfield Preliminary Engineering 

Feasibility Study Final Report (California Department of Transportation 1994). 

Alignments were studied using then-current aerial photographs and maps at a scale of 1 inch (in) 

equals 200 feet (ft). The feasibility study included preliminary engineering analysis of several key 

technical issues (e.g., structures, tunneling, and unit capital costs). The corridors studied traversed a 

variety of terrain (e.g., urban development, mountains, and valley floor). The study provided an 

important foundation for the subsequent statewide corridor evaluation studies. 

The feasibility study considered a broad range of alternative alignments and then focused on the 

most viable routes. Two main corridors between Los Angeles and Bakersfield were considered 

feasible in terms of cost, travel time, potential ridership, and environmental constraints: Interstate 5 

(I-5)/Grapevine and Palmdale–Mojave (Antelope Valley). 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 2 Alternatives 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 2-4

B. CORRIDOR EVALUATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS (1996) 

The Commission conducted a three-phase study, which was completed in 1996. The first phase 

defined the most promising corridor alignments for linking the San Francisco Bay Area and Los 

Angeles (Figure 2.3-2). The second phase examined these alternative corridors between Los Angeles 

and the Bay Area in more detail. The third phase examined potential HST system extensions to 

Sacramento, San Bernardino/Riverside, Orange County, and San Diego. 

The study identified potential station locations; estimated travel times; developed construction, 

operation, and maintenance cost estimates; analyzed environmental constraints and possible 

mitigation measures; and, in an iterative process with a ridership study prepared for the Commission, 

developed a conceptual operating plan. The corridors considered in all phases of this study are 

described in the High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation and Environmental Constraints Analysis Final 

Report (California Intercity High Speed Rail Commission 1996). 

This analysis was completed concurrently with studies addressing four other aspects of a proposed 

high-speed rail system: ridership and revenue projections, institutional and financial options, 

economic impacts and benefit/cost analysis, and public participation. The corridors recommended for 

study by the 1996 analysis are shown in Figure 2.3-3. 

C. HIGH-SPEED RAIL CORRIDOR EVALUATION (1999) 

In September 1998, the Authority initiated a study to evaluate the viability of various corridors 

throughout the state for a statewide HST system. The Authority was legislatively mandated to move 

forward in a manner that was consistent with and continued the work of the Commission. Potential 

corridors were evaluated for capital, operating, and maintenance costs; travel times; and 

engineering, operational, and environmental constraints. This study is documented in the California 

High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation Final Report (California High-Speed Rail Authority 1999). 

This study provided the Authority with a basis for recommending a potentially feasible network of 

HST corridors for further study. Although previous studies had been limited in the number of 

alternatives that could be analyzed in certain areas of the state, other potential corridors and new 

issues were identified in the 1999 study as regional and local agencies provided their input on the 

recommendations of the previous studies. 

D. BUSINESS PLAN 

The Business Plan presents a reasoned approach for constructing, operating, and financing an 

efficient and economically viable statewide HST system capable of speeds up to 220 mph (350 kph) 

that would be electrically powered and fully grade-separated and link California’s major metropolitan 

areas. The Business Plan was based on the analysis from the High-Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation

(1999), as well as ridership and revenue, cost-benefit, financial planning, and system integration 

studies. 

The Business Plan concluded that “a high-speed train system is a smart investment in the state’s 

future mobility. It will yield solid financial returns to the state and provide potentially dramatic 

transportation benefits to all Californians. It is a system that can be operated without public subsidy. 

The public’s investment should be limited to that which is necessary to ensure the construction of the 

basic system.” 

The analysis and objectives summarized in the Business Plan found that an HST system would be 

able to: 

• Return twice as much financial benefit to the state’s citizens as it costs. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Figure 2.3-1

Relationship between Previous 

California High-Speed Train Studies
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Figure 2.3-2

Initial Phase Corridors 

(Commission Studies, 1996)
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Figure 2.3-3

Corridors for Continued Consideration 

(Commission Studies, 1996)

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 2 Alternatives 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 2-5

• Carry at least 32 million intercity passengers and another 10 million commuters annually. 

• Generate about $900 million in revenues and return an operational surplus of more than 

$300 million per year. 

The Authority recommended initiating a formal environmental review process with a systemwide 

program-level EIR/EIS on the HST network described in the Business Plan. 

2.3.2 Statewide Program EIR/EIS 

The Authority certified the final statewide program EIR/EIS, and the FRA issued a Record of Decision for 

the more than 700-mile-long HST system in November 2005. This statewide process took 4 years to 

complete at a cost of about $20 million. The HST Alternative was the selected system alternative and 

was identified as the environmentally preferred alternative under NEPA, as well as the environmentally 

superior alternative under CEQA. To serve the same number of travelers as the HST system was 

projected to carry by 2020, California would have to build nearly 3,000 lane-miles of freeway, plus five 

new airport runways and 90 departure gates at a cost two to three times more than the HST Alternative. 

The program EIR/EIS concluded that high-speed trains can decrease dependency on foreign oil, preserve 

energy, decrease air pollutants, and discourage sprawl while having less impact on the natural 

environment than expanding highways and airports. 

Preferred alignments and potential HST station location options were selected for most of the statewide 

HST system as part of the final program EIR/EIS. Between the San Francisco Bay Area and Central 

Valley, a broad corridor was identified for further evaluation (Figure 1.1-1). In November 2005, the 

Authority and FRA initiated the preparation of this separate next-tier Program EIR/EIS to address the 

choice of a corridor/general alignment and station locations in the San Francisco Bay Area to the Central 

Valley region of the HST system. 

A. SELECTED HIGH-SPEED TRAIN SYSTEM ALTERNATIVE 

The HST Alternative for the over 700-mile-long HST system connecting the major metropolitan areas 

in California was selected by the Authority and FRA with the statewide program EIR/EIS (California 

High-Speed Rail Authority and Federal Railroad Administration 2005) and this prior decision forms the 

basis for the proposed action. HST alternatives considered in this Program EIR/EIS (Section 2.5) 

represent different ways to implement the HST system in the Bay Area to Central Valley study region. 

This section describes the characteristics of the HST system that were determined in the 2005 

Authority and FRA decisions, to provide the framework necessary to evaluate the HST Alignment 

Alternatives and the HST Network Alternatives for this study region. Since the 2005 decision, a new 

high-speed rail ridership forecasting model, new travel demand forecasts, and a 2030 HST operating 

plan have been developed, as described in Section 2.3.3. These current models have updated and 

refined the selected HST Alignment Alternatives for further consideration of the HST system in this 

document. 

Travel Times and Frequency of Service

Independent ridership and revenue forecasts (Charles River Associates 1996 and 2000) prepared for 

the Business Plan showed that competitive travel times and frequent service are essential to attract 

travelers to an HST system. For the HST system to be economically feasible, operating speeds over 

200 mph (322 kph), high frequencies of service, and efficient operations are necessary. For this 

fundamental reason, the Authority and the FRA selected criteria that the proposed HST system would 

operate at speeds of up to about 220 mph (350 kph) and developed a conceptual service plan that 

makes the HST system highly competitive with travel by air or auto. It is important to note that 

maximum speeds cannot be achieved on many portions of the proposed system, particularly the 

heavily constrained urban areas (Figure 2.3-4). Express travel between downtown San Francisco and 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 2 Alternatives 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 2-6

downtown Los Angeles could be accomplished in just over 2.5 hrs. The trip between downtown Los 

Angeles and downtown San Diego would take about 1 hour and 18 minutes. Table 2.3-1 shows 

current estimates of express travel times between a sample of the cities to be served. 

Table 2.3-1 

Optimal Express Travel Times (220 mph [350 kph]) 

Altamont 

Travel Time 

(hh:mm) 

Pacheco 

Travel Time 

(hh:mm)

San 

Francisco Oakland 

San 

José Sacramento Fresno 

Los 

Angeles 

San 

Diego 

San Francisco N/A N/A N/A 01:06 01:18 02:36 03:54 San 

Francisco 

Oakland N/A N/A N/A 00:53 01:04 02:23 03:40 Oakland 

San José 00:30 00:22 N/A 00:49 01:01 02:19 03:37 San José 

Sacramento 01:47 01:38 01:18 N/A 00:59 02:17 03:35 Sacramento 

Fresno 01:20 01:12 00:51 00:53 N/A 01:24 02:42 Fresno 

Los Angeles 02:38 02:30 02:09 02:11 01:24 N/A 01:18 Los Angeles 

San Diego 03:56 03:48 03:27 03:29 02:42 01:18 N/A San Diego 

San 

Francisco Oakland San Jose Sacramento Fresno Los Angeles 

San 

Diego 

N/A Not Applicable Altamont Pass Test 

Alignment 

 Pacheco Pass Test 

Alignment 

Note: Based on Altamont Pass Test Alignment B (I-580/UPRR) and Pacheco Pass Test Alignment B (Caltrain/Gilroy/Henry 

Miller/UPRR). 

Ridership forecasts for the Pacheco Pass (terminating in San Francisco) and the Altamont Pass 

(terminating in San Francisco and San Jose) have been used as the representative demand for 

defining the intercity travel need for the HST Alignment Alternatives in this Program EIS/EIR. 

The projected HST travel times account for alignment, train performance characteristics, acceleration 

and deceleration capabilities, and passenger comfort criteria. HST system operators and 

manufacturers of HST equipment were consulted in the development of the travel times and design 

criteria for the proposed HST system. 

Safety and Security

The safe operation of the HST system would be of the utmost importance. To this end, the HST 

system would be a fully grade-separated and fully access-controlled guideway with intrusion 

monitoring systems. This means that the HST infrastructure (e.g., mainline tracks and maintenance 

and storage facilities) would be designed to prevent access by unauthorized vehicles, persons, 

animals, and objects. The capital cost estimates include allowances for appropriate barriers (fences 

and walls), state-of-the-art communication, access-control, and monitoring and detection systems. 

All aspects of the HST system would conform to the latest federal requirements regarding 

transportation security. The HST trainsets (train cars) would be pressure sealed to maintain 

passenger comfort regardless of aerodynamic changes along the line. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Potential Averag

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 2 Alternatives 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 2-7

Electrification

Trains would draw electric power from overhead wires connected to the commercial power grid and, 

in braking, would regenerate electricity back to the grid, thereby conserving power and reducing 

costs. The statewide program EIR/EIS energy analysis concluded that the HST system would have a 

net energy benefit as compared to the No Project Alternative but would result in an increase in 

electric power demand. This Program EIR/EIS assessed the total energy that would be needed from 

California’s electricity grid to power and operate the proposed HST system from its commencement 

(a portion of the system) to full implementation. The HST system does not include the construction 

of a separate power source. The analysis concluded that sufficient electricity is expected to be 

available to power the proposed HST system, as segments are constructed and begin operating, 

because power generation is expected to grow to meet increased demand in the state, and the 

power needs of the proposed HST system represent a small part of that overall increase in demand. 

The power supply would consist of a 2-by-25-kilovolt (kV) overhead catenary system for all electrified 

portions of the statewide system. Supply stations would be required at approximately 30-mile 

intervals. Based on the estimated power needs of this system, these stations would need to be 

approximately 20,000 square ft (200 ft by 100 ft). Switching stations would be required at 

approximately 15-mile intervals. These stations would need to be approximately 7,500 square ft 

(150 ft by 50 ft). Paralleling (booster) stations would be required at approximately 7.5-mile intervals. 

These stations would need to be approximately 5,000 square ft (100 ft by 50 ft). Each station would 

include a control house that would need to be approximately 800 square ft (40 ft by 20 ft). These 

facilities are not sited as part of the program-level of environmental review. However, the facilities 

defined fall well within the potentially affected environment areas considered in program-level 

studies. Facility placement, sizing, and spacing would be determined during subsequent project-level 

environmental review. 

Potential for Freight Service

The proposed HST system could be used to carry small packages, parcels, letters, or any other 

freight that would not exceed typical passenger loads. This service could be provided either in 

specialized freight cars on passenger trains or on dedicated lightweight freight trains. In either case, 

the lightweight freight vehicles would be required to have the same performance characteristics as 

the passenger equipment. This type of freight could be accommodated without adjustment to the 

passenger operational plan or modification to the passenger stations and was therefore included in 

the funding scenario described in the Business Plan. 

A high-speed freight service might also be provided on specialized medium-weight freight trains. 

This specialized freight equipment would have limited axle loads (19 metric tons compared to the 

conventional freight standard of 27 metric tons per axle), would operate at speeds of up to 125 mph 

(200 kph), and would be scheduled at night to avoid conflict with passenger or maintenance 

operations. A medium-weight freight service could carry high-value or time-sensitive goods such as 

electronic equipment and perishable items. Although such a service would not interfere with 

passenger operations, it would require loading and unloading facilities separate from the passenger 

stations. Additional pick-up and distribution networks for this type of freight might also be required. 

Although the Authority recognizes the potential for overnight medium-weight freight service on the 

proposed high-speed tracks, it has not been included in this analysis. Discussions with potential 

high-speed freight operators could be initiated as part of subsequent project development with 

appropriate analysis. 

Performance Criteria

The Authority and the FRA previously defined performance criteria for the HST in the statewide 

program EIR/EIS for the HST system (California High-Speed Rail Authority and Federal Railroad 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 2 Alternatives 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 2-8

Administration 2005), drawing on many prior feasibility and corridor evaluation studies. To meet the 

travel time and service quality goals, the statewide HST system will be capable of speeds in excess of 

200 mph (320 kph) on fully grade-separated tracks with state-of-the-art safety, signaling, and 

automated train control systems. These performance criteria are summarized in Table 2.3-2.

Table 2.3-2 

HST Performance Criteria 

Category Criteria 

System Design Criteria1 Electric propulsion system. 

Fully grade-separated guideway. 

Fully access-controlled guideway with intrusion monitoring systems. 

Track geometry must maintain passenger comfort criteria (smoothness of ride, 

lateral acceleration less than 0.1 g [G forces]). 

System Capabilities All-weather/all-season operation. 

Capable of sustained vertical gradient of 3.5% without considerable degradation in 

performance. 

Capable of operating parcel and special freight service as a secondary use. 

Capable of safe, comfortable, and efficient operation at speeds over 200 mph. 

Capable of maintaining operations at 3-minute headways. 

Capable of traveling from San Francisco to Los Angeles in approximately 2.5 hrs. 

Equipped with high-capacity and redundant communications systems capable of 

supporting fully automatic train control. 

System Capacity Fully dual track mainline with off-line station stopping tracks. 

Capable of accommodating a wide range of passenger demand (up to 

26,000 passengers per hour per direction). 

Capable of accommodating normal maintenance activities without disruption to 

daily operations. 

Level of Service Capable of accommodating a wide range of service types (express, semiexpress/limited stop, and local).

Description of High-Speed Train Technology 

The selected HST Alternative (California High-Speed Rail Authority and Federal Railroad 

Administration 2005) consists of steel-wheel-on-steel-rail trains capable of meeting the Authority’s 

performance criteria (Table 2.3-2) that would be able to share tracks at reduced speeds with other 

compatible train services. These high-speed trains are capable of maximum operating speeds up to 

220 mph (350 kph) (Figure 2.3-5). All HST systems in operation around the world use electric 

propulsion with overhead catenary. These include the Train à Grande Vitesse (TGV) in France, the 

Shinkansen in Japan, and the InterCity Express (ICE) in Germany. 

To operate at high speeds, a dedicated, fully grade-separated right-of-way is necessary with more 

stringent alignment requirements than those needed for lower-speed lines. Therefore, this state-ofthe-art, high-speed, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology would operate in the majority of the 

statewide system in dedicated (exclusive track) configuration. However, where the construction of 

new separate HST infrastructure would be infeasible, shared track operations would use improved rail 

infrastructure and electrical propulsion. It would be possible to integrate HST systems into existing 

 

1 Engineering Criteria, January 2004. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Figure 2.3-5

VHS Technology Examples

Intercity Express (ICE)

Shinkansen

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 2 Alternatives 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 2-9

conventional rail lines in the congested urban areas with resolution of potential equipment and 

operating compatibility issues by the FRA and the California Public Utilities Commission. Potential 

shared-use corridors would be limited to sections of the statewide system with extensive urban 

constraints. Shared-use corridors would meet the following general criteria in addition to the 

performance criteria: 

• Uniform control/signal system. 

• Four tracks at stations (to allow for through/express services and local stopping patterns). 

• Three to four mainline tracks (depending on capacity requirements of HST and other services). 

• Physical or temporal separation from conventional freight traffic. 

Using this technology, the proposed HST system would be constructed with consistent dual tracking 

in a variety of construction sections (e.g., at grade, elevated structure, tunnel), as appropriate for the 

constraints of each specific section. These typical construction sections are illustrated in 

Figures 2.3-6, 2.3-7, and 2.3-8. 

Design Practices 

Design practices have also been identified that would be employed as the project is developed 

further in the project specific environmental review, final design, and construction stages. These 

practices will be applied to the implementation of the HST system to avoid, minimize, and mitigate 

potential impacts. Some key design practices are summarized below: 

• Use of existing transportation corridors would be maximized. Nearly 70% of the adopted 

preferred HST alignments are either within or adjacent to a major existing transportation corridor 

(existing railroad or highway right-of-way). 

• Tracks that are fully grade separated from all roadways would be used. 

• Multi-modal transportation hubs would be used. 

• Electric power, high-quality track interface, and smaller, lighter, and more aerodynamic trainsets 

would be used, which would result in less noise than existing commuter and freight trains 

because HST do not have the rumble associated with diesel engines and use a design that 

greatly minimizes track noise. 

• Transit-oriented design (TOD) and smart growth land use policies would be used. Station area 

development principles that would be applied at the project-level for each HST station and the 

areas around the stations would include: 

− Higher density development. 

− A mix of land uses (retail, office, hotels, entertainment, residential, etc.) and housing types 

to meet the needs of the local community. 

− A grid street pattern and compact pedestrian-oriented design that promotes walking, bicycle, 

and transit access. 

− Context-sensitive building design that considers the continuity of the building sizes and 

coordinates the street-level and upper-level architectural detailing, roof forms, and rhythm of 

windows and doors. 

− Limits on the amount and location of development-related parking, with a preference that 

parking be placed in structures. 

• Portions of the system would be in tunnel or on aerial structure, which would avoid and/or 

minimize impacts to surface water resources. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 2 Alternatives 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 2-10

• Measures to avoid water infiltration would be taken. 

• Underpasses or overpasses or other appropriate passageways would be designed to avoid, 

minimize, and/or mitigate any potential impacts to wildlife movement. 

• In-line construction would be used for sensitive areas, as defined at the project level. 

2.3.3 Formulation of Alternatives for the Bay Area to Central Valley Region 

With the initiation of this Program EIR/EIS, the Authority and the FRA began the process of defining 

reasonable and feasible HST Alignment Alternatives and station location options in the study region. The 

process involved consideration of the purpose and need for the proposed action and consultation with 

public agencies and the public, as described below. 

A. AGENCY AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND SCOPING 

Agency and public input was obtained during the scoping process pursuant to CEQA and NEPA. The 

notice of preparation (NOP) was released November 14, 2005, and the notice of intent (NOI) was 

published in the Federal Register on November 28, 2005. Written comments were received in 

response to these notifications. 

Scoping activities for this Program EIR/EIS were conducted between November 15 and December 16, 

2005. Because of the geographic extent and complexity of the proposed project, a series of six 

scoping meetings were held throughout the region, along with other meetings, briefings, and 

involvement activities. Each scoping meeting had an afternoon session (from 3:00 to 5:00 p.m.) and 

an evening session (from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m.) to accommodate agencies, interested parties, and the 

general public. 

The Program EIR/EIS scoping process identified areas of potential concern related to the proposed 

HST system in the study region. Many comments related to a preference for either Altamont Pass or 

Pacheco Pass alignment alternatives. Many comments indicated the need for an improved statewide 

transportation system that is reliable, cost effective, and easy to use. Many comments emphasized 

the need for an HST system to connect to existing transportation systems, including airports. 

Providing for potential freight service was also a frequent theme, as was the need to separate HST 

and heavy freight operations. Issues of concern about the environment typically focused on potential 

noise and visual impacts, safety, and impacts on air quality and sensitive habitats. The potential for 

growth inducement was also raised. The scoping process and outcomes, including comments and 

concerns, are documented in the Bay Area to Central Valley Scoping Report (California High-Speed 

Rail Authority and Federal Railroad Administration 2006). 

B. AGENCY INVOLVEMENT 

Following the issuance of the NOI and NOP and the scoping meetings, the Authority and the FRA 

formed a working group of representatives from 27 federal and state agencies to assist in the 

environmental review process. The interagency group met during the Program EIS/EIR development 

to discuss major issues from the perspective of these agencies and to provide input to the lead 

agencies to help focus the analysis and streamline the review process. 

The federal and state agency representatives included in this process were asked to provide input for 

the following specific areas: 

• Scope of the Program EIR/EIS. 

• Purpose and need statement. 

• Technical methods of analysis and study area definition. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Figure 2.3-6

At-Grade Section
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Figure 2.3-7

Elevated Structure
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Figure 2.3-8

Twin Tunnels

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 2 Alternatives 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 2-11

• Substantive issues of particular concern. 

• Sources of information and data relevant to their agencies. 

• Avoidance, minimization, and mitigation strategies. 

• Definition of alternatives to be analyzed in the Program EIR/EIS. 

• Procedural requirements and permits or approvals necessary for subsequent phases of 

environmental review. 

The Authority also invited input from regional and local agencies in areas potentially affected by the 

proposed HST system. Meetings of the Authority’s governing board were also a forum for providing 

information about the environmental process. These meetings were held in major cities in the study 

region to provide a convenient opportunity for regional and local public participation and input. 

As discussed in Section 1.1, the FRA is the lead federal agency for NEPA compliance, and federal 

cooperating agencies are the USACE and EPA. The FRA developed a memorandum of understanding 

(MOU) with the federal cooperating agencies to clarify expectations for the preparation and review of 

the Program EIR/EIS and for CWA Section 404 review. The federal cooperating agencies have met 

during the environmental review process to provide input to the Program EIR/EIS, and their 

involvement is expected to continue throughout the program environmental process. 

C. TRAVEL DEMAND AND RIDERSHIP FORECASTS 

Since previous ridership and revenue forecasts were prepared about 10 years ago for the Business 

Plan, a new intercity travel demand model was created by Cambridge Systematics for the MTC in 

partnership with the Authority to provide current and more refined ridership forecasts. New ridership 

forecasts were prepared using the new model in 2006 and 2007 to support continued development 

and environmental review of the proposed HST system. The model takes into account trends in 

travel demand, congestion, and other adverse travel conditions, which imply the market for intercity 

travel in California that the proposed HST system could serve will grow faster than the population by 

up to 46% over the next 30 years. 

According to the base, or low, travel demand forecast prepared using the new model, the HST 

system would carry at least 88 million passengers per year by 2030 (Table 2.3-3). This estimate 

conservatively assumes current costs for air and automobile transportation would remain constant in 

real value. HST service plans were also adjusted to satisfy the new forecast for high-speed train 

travel demand. The proposed HST base ridership estimate also includes nearly 69,000 commuters 

riding every weekday by 2030, or about 25 million commuter passengers annually (out of the total 88 

million annual riders). Analyses were also performed as part of the independent ridership and 

revenue forecasts (Cambridge Systematics 2007), using different assumptions for a 50% real 

increase in the costs for air and automobile travel, which resulted in a high forecast of potential 

ridership for the HST system of 117 million annual passengers for 2030 (36 million riders would be 

commuters) (Table 2.3-3). 

Ridership for the HST system is now estimated to be between 88 million and 117 million passengers 

for 2030, with a potential for further ridership growth beyond 2030. These new ridership forecasts 

are higher than those analyzed in the previous program EIR/EIS for the HST system; however, this 

analysis is consistent with that provided in the previous document because the infrastructure and 

facilities footprints analyzed in that document would accommodate the new ridership forecasts. The 

purpose of and need for this project is to meet a part of California’s future intercity travel demand in 

2030 and beyond. Although the HST system would have the capacity to carry many more 

passengers than indicated in the high ridership forecast, by using longer trains, double-decker cars, 

or more frequent service (e.g., the Shinkansen system in Japan carries more than 300 million 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 2 Alternatives 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 2-12

passengers annually), it is reasonable to assess the HST alternatives using forecast ridership rather 

than theoretical capacity. 

For analysis of the proposed HST system in this Program EIR/EIS, both low and high forecasts were 

prepared for the No Project Alternative and two of the representative HST networks serving both San 

Francisco and San Jose (i.e., one for the Altamont corridor and one for the Pacheco corridor). The 

two representative HST networks defined the upper and lower bounds for the ridership forecasts. To 

assess relative changes between No Project and the HST alternatives where ridership is a governing 

factor, the appropriate forecasts were compared (i.e., high No Project to high HST or low No Project 

to low HST). The high ridership forecast of 117 million intercity trips, which includes the 36 million 

commuter trips figure, serves as the representative worst-case scenario for analyzing the potential 

environmental impacts from construction and operation of the HST system through 2030. This high 

forecast was generally used to define and develop the HST alternatives and is also referred to 

hereafter as the representative demand. In some specific analyses (e.g., energy, air quality, and 

transportation), the HST system would result in potential benefits. In those cases, analysis using the 

low ridership forecasts is used in this Program EIS/EIR. 

Table 2.3-3 

2030 Ridership Forecasts 

Ridership 

Forecast 

Year Intercity 

Passengers 

Annually (millions) 

Purpose 

High a 2030 117 (includes 36 

commuter trips) 

Serves as a representative worst-case scenario for 

analyzing the potential for adverse environmental impacts 

from construction and operation of the HST system. 

Low b 

(also called 

base) 

2030 88 (includes 25 

commuter trips) c

Used in analyses of beneficial effects from the HST 

system. 

a

 Assumes a 50% real increase in costs for air and automobile transportation. 

b

 Conservatively assumes current costs for air and automobile transportation. 

c Included for analysis in 3.1, Traffic; 3.2, Travel Conditions; 3.3, Air Quality; and 3.5, Energy. 

D. CONCEPTUAL SERVICE PLAN 

To satisfy the travel time, service quality, and expected ridership (representative demand) criteria 

developed for the Business Plan, and accounting for the general characteristics of the corridors 

considered, the conceptual service plan must provide a wide variety of service options. A mix of 

express, semi-express, local, and regional trains would serve both intercity passengers and longdistance commuters. For HST service to be economically viable, train operations must be frequent 

and efficient. 

According to the 2030 operating plan, a total of 124–139 weekday trains in each direction would be 

provided to serve the statewide HST travel market as forecast for the low- and high-end scenarios. 

Ninety-one to ninety-six of the trains would run between northern and southern California, and the 

remaining 33–43 trains would serve shorter distance markets. The basic service pattern would 

provide most passenger service between 6 a.m. and 8 p.m., with a few trains starting or finishing 

trips beyond these hours. One hundred and twenty-four to one hundred and thirty-nine trains per 

day could be a highly frequent operation; however, as shown below, when divided into five types of 

service, the frequency is greatly reduced. Frequencies would be further reduced to serve multiple 

end points. For example, for HST service between northern and southern California through the 

Central Valley, some trains would go to the Bay Area and others to Sacramento. Therefore, although 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 2 Alternatives 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 2-13

there could be 19–25 local trains, only a portion of these would serve each endpoint. The following 

five types of intercity trains are planned: 

• Express (16 trains per day): Trains running between Sacramento, San Jose, or San Francisco and 

Los Angeles or San Diego without intermediate stops. 

• Semi-Express (17–26 trains per day): Trains running between Sacramento, San Jose, or San 

Francisco and Los Angeles and San Diego with intermediate stops at major Central Valley cities 

such as Modesto, Fresno, and Bakersfield. 

• Suburban-Express (30–35 trains per day): Trains running between northern and southern 

California and locally within the major metropolitan areas (i.e., the San Francisco Bay Area and 

the Los Angeles area) at the beginning and end of the trip without intermediate stops in the 

Central Valley. 

• Local (19–25 trains per day): Trains stopping at all stations. Some of these local trains might 

ultimately be operated as a “skip stop” or semi-express service, where trains would stop at only a 

portion of the possible stations on a specific line, to improve the service and better match 

patterns of demand. 

• Regional (33–43 trains per day): Sacramento to San Francisco service and early morning service 

from the Central Valley to San Francisco or Los Angeles/San Diego. 

E. HST ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT 

The development of the alternatives considered in this Program EIR/EIS incorporated the principles 

established for the HST Alternative selected in the statewide program EIR/EIS and set forth in the 

Business Plan to minimize capital and operating costs while maximizing total benefits. The FRA and 

the Authority recognized that the HST system would require a commitment of substantial resources 

and addressed the broad issues related to the development of a proposed HST system in the 

statewide program EIR/EIS (California High-Speed Rail Authority and Federal Railroad Administration 

2005). Based on the information developed in the earlier studies discussed above and the selected 

HST Alternative, as well as through public and agency coordination and scoping, the Authority and 

the FRA were able to identify potential alternatives for implementation of the proposed HST system in 

the study region. 

The Authority and the FRA began developing the alternatives by seeking to identify the most 

reasonable, practicable, and environmentally sensitive HST Alignment Alternatives and station 

locations for analysis in this Program EIR/EIS. As part of this process, alternatives previously 

considered were reevaluated, and a screening of potential alignment alternatives and station location 

options was conducted. This screening analyzed all reasonable and practical alignment alternatives 

and station location options within viable HST corridors. 

The evaluation of potential HST Alignment Alternatives and station location options used the 

following standardized criteria: construction, environment, land use compatibility, right-of-way, 

connectivity/accessibility, and ridership/revenue. 

The screening of alignment alternatives and stations comprised the following key activities: 

• Review of past alignment and station location options identified within viable corridors from 

previous studies. 

• Identification through the environmental scoping process of alignment alternatives and station 

location options not previously evaluated. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 2 Alternatives 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 2-14

• Evaluation of alignment alternatives and station location options using standardized engineering, 

environmental, and financial criteria (described above) and evaluation methodologies at a 

consistent level of analysis. 

• Identification of the ability of alignment alternatives and station location options to meet defined 

objectives. 

The results of this analysis were documented in the Draft Alignment Alternatives and Potential Station 

Locations Options Report (California High-Speed Rail Authority and Federal Railroad Administration 

2006), presented at the Authority’s March 22, 2006, Board Meeting, and in the Additional Potential 

HST Alignment and Stations Considered but Rejected Report (California High-Speed Rail Authority 

and Federal Railroad Administration 2006) presented at the Authority’s August 9, 2006, Board 

Meeting. Technical data, combined with public and agency input, provided the Authority and the FRA 

with the necessary information to focus further studies for the Program EIR/EIS on those alignment 

alternatives, station location options, and HST systems that represent a reasonable range of 

practicable alternatives to meet the project purpose and attain several objectives established by the 

Authority. Those objectives include: 

• Maximize ridership and revenue potential. 

• Maximize connectivity and accessibility. 

• Maximize compatibility with existing and planned development. 

• Maximize avoidance of areas with geologic and soils constraints. 

• Maximize avoidance of areas with potential hazardous materials. 

• Minimize operating and capital costs. 

• Minimize impacts on natural resources. 

• Minimize impacts on social and economic resources. 

• Minimize impacts on cultural resources. 

Complex issues associated with the tunneling were addressed as part of the statewide program 

EIR/EIS process. This work focused on the feasibility, construction methods, and cost assumptions 

associated with proposed tunneling for the HST system and resulted in the Authority’s objective of 

minimizing the amount of tunneling required, particularly the use of long tunnels (more than 6 mi 

[10 km] long), due to cost, time of construction, and potential for delay. Tunnels more than 12 mi 

(19 km) long are considered infeasible for this project, and it is the Authority’s objective to cross 

major fault zones at grade. The technical information produced as part of the statewide program 

EIR/EIS is documented in the Tunneling Issues Report (California High-Speed Rail Authority January 

2004). 

F. RELATED PROGRAMS AND STUDIES 

The purpose of the proposed HST system includes “interfaces between the HST system and major 

commercial airports, mass transit and the highway network” (Section 1.2.1). Planned commuter rail 

improvements in the study region described below are related and would connect to the proposed 

HST system. These plans and projects have been considered in the development of the HST 

Alignment Alternatives and station location options. 

San Francisco Bay Area Regional Rail Plan

Approved by Bay Area voters in March 2004, the Regional Measure 2 (RM2) Traffic Relief Plan 

provides funding to various transit operating assistance and capital projects and programs that have 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 2 Alternatives 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 2-15

been determined to facilitate travel in the toll bridge corridors. One provision of RM2 provides for the 

preparation of a Regional Rail Plan to guide near- and long-term planning for an integrated and 

expanded passenger rail system that would also accommodate freight needs (Streets and Highways 

Code Section 30914 [c] [33]). Additionally, RM2 calls for the analysis of alternative California HST 

alignments between the Central Valley and the Bay Area, which have been used to inform this 

Program EIR/EIS. These two RM2 study elements have been integrated to provide a fully 

comprehensive San Francisco Bay Area Regional Rail Plan. RM2 provides a $4.5 million budget for 

the study. 

The MTC, BART, Caltrain, and the Authority, along with a coalition of rail passenger and freight 

operators, have prepared this comprehensive Regional Rail Plan. As required by RM2, MTC adopted 

the Regional Rail Plan in September 2007 (available at http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/rail/). 

The Regional Rail Plan examines ways to incorporate passenger trains into existing rail systems, 

improve connections to other trains and transit, expand the regional rapid transit network, increase 

rail capacity, coordinate rail investment around transit-friendly communities and businesses, and 

identify functional and institutional consolidation opportunities. The plan also includes a detailed 

analysis of potential high-speed rail routes between the Bay Area and the Central Valley consistent 

with the Authority’s environmental review of the proposed rail lines. Overall, the plan looks at 

improvements and extensions of railroad, rapid transit, and high-speed rail services for the near term 

(5–10 years), intermediate term (10–25 years), and long term (beyond 25 years). 

The Regional Rail Plan is intended to create a rail network that addresses the anticipated growth in 

transportation demand and help deliver the long-range vision of rail for the Bay Area. The Regional 

Rail Plan's network and services are intended to: 

• Address the combined challenges of moving people and goods. 

• Link people with commercial, employment, and residential centers. 

• Expand capacity for goods movements to support the regional economy. 

• Identify the most cost-effective investments. 

• Serve as the backbone of an integrated regional transit network with seamless connections at 

key transit hubs to local transit services. 

• Accommodate development of statewide high-speed rail, and enable operation of regional 

services along high-speed lines, and vice-versa. 

• Include policies and incentives to encourage local governments to create well-designed, walkable 

communities with a mix of services near transit. 

• Promote a governance structure that can develop regional system improvements and deliver 

coordinated, customer-oriented services. 

MTC, BART, Caltrain, and the Authority staffs are managing the Regional Rail Plan. As required in 

RM2, a steering committee consisting of regional rail passenger operators, freight railroad operators, 

and county congestion management agencies provided direction during the plan development. The 

steering committee was the forum for coordinated review and comment on the plan prior to its 

submission to MTC for approval. An advisory group of regional specialists in the fields of academia, 

business, land use, and the environment also helped to refine the study’s technical analysis. 

Outreach to freight and rail operators, public agencies, and community stakeholders was ongoing 

throughout the study process. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 2 Alternatives 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 2-16

Capitol Corridor Rail Service 

The Capitol Corridor, having recently completed track improvements between Oakland and San Jose 

that allowed an increase in service frequency, is planning to implement a next phase of capacity 

increasing projects in the Oakland to San Jose corridor and a series of track improvements aimed at 

reliability in the Oakland to Sacramento corridor. A track capacity enhancement project is also 

planned for the Auburn to Sacramento corridor which will allow, in a phased project implementation 

approach, service frequency increases in this portion of the corridor. Projects previously programmed 

by the State include the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority’s (CCJPA's) contribution to the San 

Jose 4th Main Track project and the Bahia Track Improvement project. 

With the recent passage of Proposition 1B, a series of projects that jointly benefit both freight and 

passenger rail are identified. The projects may include a revised Alameda Creek crossing in the Niles 

Junction area which will allow transfer of freight rail traffic to and from the Altamont Pass from the 

Oakland Port in a more expeditious route than is done currently running freight through Fremont. 

This improvement coupled with improvements at a junction point in South Hayward will allow 

passenger trains (Capitol Corridor and the planned Dumbarton Rail service) to avoid freight conflicts 

for a portion of the route between Oakland and San Jose. Double tracking is also planned north of 

the South Hayward point which will provide for additional track capacity for freight and passenger 

trains. A costly project planned for the route at some point will be to upgrade or replace the bridge 

crossing between Martinez and Benicia to avoid the conflicts created when waterborne vessels 

require the current bridge to be lifted. The anticipated increases in freight traffic coupled with 

passenger rail service are expected to become so frequent that the delays caused by bridge liftings 

could create catastrophic delays for all forms of rail service. 

Caltrain Corridor Commuter Rail Service

The Caltrain Joint Powers Board (JPB) forecasts a robust increase in Caltrain ridership driven by 

population increase, work force increase, and convenience and economic influences. Reports 

generated by the Caltrain discuss the “pull” demand composed of elective riders who could chose the 

automobile but elect to ride the commuter rail system as a preferred provider. According to the 

Caltrain JPB, this latent demand has been proven to be real based on the extraordinary growth in 

ridership realized in 2005 and 2006. 

The first 5 years of the Caltrain capital program focuses on a program called the State of Good 

Repair. This program concentrates on optimizing the current system’s performance. The activities in 

this program range from improvements to the signaling and communications systems to replacing old 

bridges, from improving the approach speeds and flexibility at the San Francisco terminus to 

eliminating the last of the hold-out stations. The product of this portion of the program is an optimal 

condition of the current system which will enable larger programs with minimal impact to 

performance. 

The current method of Caltrain operation will reach its maximum capacity in less than 5 years, even 

with the system improvements previously mentioned. Electrification, which is required for connection 

to the Transbay Transit Center and to accommodate the HST on the line, presents the JPB with two 

implementation options to consider, each with fundamental performance differences. The first option 

is to purchase electrified locomotives to haul standard passenger coaches that currently run on 

Caltrain. This solution is relatively low risk for the JPB and supports operations to the Transbay 

Transit Center. However, this solution is problematic for the Authority because standard North 

American rail equipment is not compatible with HSTs currently in service around the world, and the 

HST would require high-level platforms. 

The second option for the JPB is to procure electric multiple units (EMUs) that would be compatible 

with the European or Japanese HSTs that the Authority may select (non-FRA compliant). This option 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 2 Alternatives 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 2-17

would support operations to the Transbay Transit Center and shared corridor operations with the HST 

and offer the JPB more flexible trains with better performance characteristics. The JPB has found this 

solution to be cost effective on a lifecycle basis, but there is greater risk to the JPB in that the 

Authority, CPUC, FRA, and Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) must all reach agreement for 

implementation. 

Altamont Commuter Express Service

The San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission, which owns and operates the Altamont Commuter 

Express (ACE), operates four daily roundtrips, Monday–Friday between Stockton and San Jose 

through the Altamont Pass. The 86-mile ACE corridor directly serves three counties and eight cities 

between the Central Valley and the Silicon Valley. The trains stop at three San Joaquin stations 

(Stockton, Lathrop/Manteca, and Tracy), four Alameda County Stations (Livermore [2], Pleasanton, 

and Fremont), and in Santa Clara County (Santa Clara [2] and San Jose). 

ACE is working with the UPRR to complete a major signal upgrade project between Fremont and 

Stockton to improve reliability and speed on the route. Over the next 5-year period, ACE will be 

implementing capital projects that improve reliability and increase speeds in the Stockton to Fremont 

section of the corridor. 

ACE is completing two planning/implementation studies. 

• The ACE Corridor Analysis Study is focused on identifying improvements to ACE Service, which 

includes the potential purchase of a separate agency-owned corridor for the ACE service and 

short haul freight between the Port of Oakland and the Central Valley, and providing a better 

connection to BART. The draft corridor analysis study was completed in August 2007. 

• The Expansion Opportunities Analysis is looking at the expansion opportunities for commuter rail 

service. Corridors that are being reviewed are: 

− Merced to Sacramento. 

− Stockton to Oakland (Delta Route). 

− Los Banos to Tracy. 

Dumbarton Rail Project

The March 2004 voter approval of RM2 included funding to reconstruct the out-of-service Dumbarton 

rail line between Southern Alameda County and the San Francisco Peninsula. The reconstructed rail 

bridge across the bay would be the key component in the establishment of the commuter rail service 

between the Union City BART station and the Caltrain line on the peninsula. 

New trackway connections would also need to be constructed in the vicinity of the Union City BART 

station to provide the transfer connection. Service would begin at Union City in the morning and 

would carry commuters to the west bay via Union Pacific tracks in Fremont and Newark, continuing 

on the publicly owned and reconstructed Dumbarton segment. Rail equipment comparable to current 

Caltrain rolling stock is expected to be employed. 

The reconstructed Dumbarton segment includes embankment, trestle structure, and two swing 

bridges; most of the segment is single track with limited passing sidings. New stations would be built 

in Menlo Park and Newark as well as at the Intermodal Station at Union City. The connections of the 

Dumbarton Line to Caltrain in Redwood City would also be improved as part of the project. The 

project is currently being considered for phased implementation due to funding constraints and the 

inability to reach a track sharing agreement with the Union Pacific Railroad. The initial phase would 

include the reconstruction of the publicly owned right of way between Newark and Redwood City. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 2 Alternatives 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 2-18

Rail service would operate from a Newark station across the reconstructed bridge to Redwood City 

and Caltrain. A second component of the project, the Union City Intermodal Station, would also be 

constructed and utilized by the Capital Corridor service. 

Environmental studies are now under preparation; preliminary engineering is also underway to refine 

the estimated cost for rehabilitating the bay-crossing structures. Local land use plans, both adopted 

or under preparation, support TOD at the project station locations. 

While the Dumbarton Rail project might be able to be completed prior to implementation of the HST 

system, it conflicts with the proposed HST system and the JPB’s Caltrain Corridor EMU option. 

Conventional trains to be used for the Dumbarton rail service would not be compatible with HSTs 

currently in service around the world, nor with the similar EMUs proposed for use by the JPB. The 

rehabilitated Dumbarton Bridge would still be a single track bridge that could not accommodate HST 

service should the Altamont Corridor with a bay crossing be selected. Alternatively, if high density 

regional rail service is developed in the future along this route, a double track bridge across the bay 

would likewise be necessary. 

G. PROJECT PHASING 

Building an HST system of over 700 miles would tax the state’s resources, such as its financial, 

human, and material needs, and the Authority must deal with both environmental and engineering 

challenges. Like all the other HST networks implemented throughout the world, the Authority has 

determined that California HST system must be built in phases that are carefully planned; each phase 

in turn must be built in stages. 

In order to better utilize limited resources, the Authority selected the first phase (Phase 1) and will 

concentrate most of its resources to the construction of that phase2

. While placing emphasis on 

Phase 1, the Authority will also continue with necessary planning, environmental studies, and other 

activities to advance and preserve those routes and stations that are not included in Phase 1. 

The major factors considered in the development of the phasing plan include the following: 

• Availability of funds. 

• The utility of each phase. 

• Time needed for construction. 

• Availability of public and private partners. 

• Need for right-of-way acquisition. 

The phasing decision took into consideration the cost, ridership, and revenue data presented to the 

Board on April 18, 2007. The phasing decision is also based on the following needs and goals: 

• Early utilization of some segments. 

• Some degree of local and regional participation in the early construction and funding. 

• Serving many regions. 

• Significant operating surplus to include a private partner in the construction and operation. 

• Development of a high-speed segment of around 100 miles for building, testing, and 

commissioning the high-speed trainsets, equipment, and systems. 

 

2

 At the May 23, 2007, Authority meeting in Sacramento. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 2 Alternatives 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 2-19

• Completion in less than 10 years from today. 

Phase 1: Anaheim to Los Angeles to Merced and the San Francisco Bay Area

Phase 1 connects the major metropolitan areas of the state while serving the fastest growing region, 

the Central Valley. Phase 1 is the backbone of the proposed HST system, producing the highest 

potential ridership and revenue, which in all likelihood will attract substantial private sector financing. 

Within Phase 1, the Authority will capitalize on early improvements already planned and underway for 

certain corridors as well as developing a high-speed train segment in the Central Valley that will 

provide for the commissioning and testing of the equipment. 

The San Diego to Los Angeles section of the HST system is a later phase because the SCAG is 

continuing its studies aimed at magnetic levitation (Maglev) HST service between Los Angeles, 

Ontario, and Riverside. Similarly, in the San Diego region, the San Diego Association of Governments 

(SANDAG) will be studying the potential use of Maglev technology between San Diego and Riverside. 

The section from Merced to Sacramento is a later phase due to the lower ridership potential than the 

connection to the Bay Area. 

2.4 No Project Alternative 

The No Project Alternative describes the study region without implementation of the HST system and is 

the basis for comparison of the HST Alignment Alternatives. The No Project Alternative represents the 

state’s transportation system (highway, air, and conventional rail) as it is currently and as it would be 

after implementation of programs or projects that are currently projected in RTPs, have identified funds 

for implementation, and are expected to be in place by 2030. This financially constrained level of 

infrastructure improvement (based on the expected federal, state, regional, and local funding) was 

analyzed in consideration of the considerable growth in population and transportation demand that is 

projected to occur by 2030. The No Project Alternative addresses the geographic area that serves the 

major destination markets for intercity travel and that would be served by the proposed HST system in 

the study region. This area extends generally from the San Francisco Bay Area and Sacramento through 

the Central Valley. Figure 2.4-1 illustrates the existing intercity transportation infrastructure that serves 

these major travel markets. 

The No Project Alternative satisfies the statutory requirements under CEQA and NEPA for an alternative 

that does not include any new action or project beyond what is already committed. The No Project 

Alternative includes the existing and future statewide intercity transportation system based on 

programmed and funded improvements through 2030, according to the following sources of information. 

• State Transportation Improvement Project (STIP). 

• Regional Transportation Plans (RTPs), financially constrained projects for all modes of travel. 

− Transportation 2030 Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area, MTC, February 2005. 

− 2006 Metropolitan Transportation Plan, Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG), 

Adopted March 16, 2006. 

− 2004 Regional Transportation Plan, Council of Fresno County Governments, Adopted July 22, 

2004. 

− 2004 Regional Transportation Plan for Merced County, Merced County Association of 

Governments (MCAG), Adopted August 19, 2004. 

− 2004 Regional Transportation Plan: Vision 2030, San Joaquin Council of Governments. 

− 2004 Regional Transportation Plan, Stanislaus Council of Governments, 2004. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 2 Alternatives 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 2-20

• Airport plans 

• Intercity passenger rail plans 

The future improvements that would be part of the No Project Alternative are also included in the 

assumed future 2030 baseline conditions for the Study Region under the HST Network and Alignment 

Alternatives. The No Project Alternative includes highway, aviation, and conventional rail elements, as 

discussed below. 

2.4.1 Highway Element 

The No Project highway system that currently serves the intercity travel market in the study region 

proposed to be served by the HST Alternative includes the highways identified in Table 2.4-1 and 

illustrated in Figure 2.4-1. The No Project Alternative includes this existing highway system, as well as 

funded and programmed improvements on the intercity highway network based on financially constrained 

RTPs developed by regional transportation planning agencies. Intercity highway improvements included 

as part of the No Project Alternative include infrastructure projects, as well as intelligent transportation 

system (ITS) and other potential system improvements programmed to be in operation by 2030. The 

improvements consist primarily of individual interchange improvements and roadway widening projects 

on limited segments of the highway network. As such, the improvements do not cumulatively add 

considerable line capacity to the highway system. The intercity highway improvements included as part 

of the No Project Alternative are identified by county in Appendix 2-A. This list of projects is consistent 

with “the Bay Area/California High-Speed Rail Ridership and Revenue Forecasting Study” which supplied 

the ridership numbers for this EIR/EIS. 

Table 2.4-1 

Existing California Intercity Highway System 

Interstate Highway U.S. Highway State Route 

I-5 US-101 SR-14 

I-80 SR-17 

I-205 SR-24 

I-280 SR-92 

I-580 SR-99 

I-680 SR-237 

I-880 SR-237 

2.4.2 Aviation Element 

The air transportation system evaluated under the No Project Alternative consists of 5 airports that 

currently provide commercial service in the study region proposed to be served by the HST Alignment 

Alternatives (study area). The airports do not necessarily provide commercial service between the same 

intercity markets as the proposed HST system. These airports are illustrated in Figure 2.4-1 and listed 

below. 

• San Francisco International Airport (SFO). 

• Oakland International Airport (OAK). 

• Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport (SJC). 

• Modesto City-County-Harry Sham Field (MOD). 

• Merced Municipal/Macready Field (MCE). 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Study Are

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 2 Alternatives 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 2-21

The airport development process is distinct from the highway and rail development processes and is not 

documented in local/regional transportation plans or in the STIP. In addition, because many airport 

improvements are funded with a combination of public and private funds, there is limited formal public 

documentation identifying committed projects that are likely to be operational by 2030. 

For this analysis and to conceptualize a 2030 No Project airport system, criteria for airport development 

were developed to review proposed projects and determine their likelihood for implementation and 

operation by the year 2030. Proposed airport improvements were evaluated based on a review of 

available documentation, interviews with airport planning and development professionals, local area 

knowledge, and public agency input. An airport improvement is deemed likely to be implemented and 

operational by 2030 if the improvement meets the following criteria: 

• Has been identified in an approved or under-development airport master planning program, 

environmental document, regional aviation system planning document, or capital improvement 

program, and 

• Is reasonably practical to place into operation by 2030. 

By applying this approach, the airport improvements likely to be funded, programmed, and operational by 

2030 are summarized in Table 2.4-2. 

Only a portion of the programmed, funded, and potentially operational improvements for 2030 are 

related to California intercity trips entirely made within the state. The projected aviation improvements 

were adjusted to represent only the intra-California proportional share, based on the Passenger Survey 

for California Market Demand in the Official Airline Guide [OAG] (Parsons Brinckerhoff 2002) as 

summarized in Table 2.4-3. The addition of this proportion of improvements to the existing 2001 airport 

facilities and aviation system is represented in the No Project Alternative. Appendix 2-B provides a 

detailed description of the aviation element of the No Project Alternative. 

Table 2.4-2 

Assumed Total Programmed, Funded, and Operational Airport Improvementsa

Airport 

Passenger 

Terminal Size 

(square feet) Runways Gates 

Primary 

Access 

Lanes 

Parking Spaces 

(On-/Off-Site) 

Bay Area 

Oakland (OAK) 320,000 0 12 2c 10,000 

San Jose (SJC) 500,000 0 17 2 6,400 

a

 Total improvements assumed to be programmed, funded, and operational by 2030. 

b

 The City and County of San Francisco and the FAA have commenced preparation of an EIR/EIS for a runway 

expansion/reconfiguration at SFO that may occur before 2030. It is not assumed as part of the No Project 

improvements because it does not meet the criteria as established. 

C Includes the Oakland Airport Connector project, which is under construction. The connector is a 3 (approx.)-mile 

people mover, operating on exclusive guideway connecting the Oakland International Airport to the BART Coliseum 

Station. 

Sources: Master planning and environmental documents, regional aviation system planning documents, and interviews 

with local area airport staff and airport planners (Chapter 12). 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 2 Alternatives 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 2-22

Table 2.4-3 

Assumed Programmed, Funded, and Operational Improvements 

Adjusted for Trips inside California*

Airport 

Passenger 

Terminal Size 

(square feet) Runways Gates 

Highway 

Lanes 

Parking Spaces 

(On-/Off-Site) 

Bay Area 

Oakland (OAK) 192,000 0 7 1 6,010 

San Jose (SJC) 245,000 0 8 1 3,140 

* Adjusted to represent the proportional share of improvements by 2030 for intercity California trips only. Assumed 

intercity California trips are Oakland 60% and San Jose 49% 

Sources: Official Airline Guide Passenger Survey for California Market Demand, August 2002 and Parsons Brinckerhoff 

2002. 

2.4.3 Conventional Passenger Rail and Bay Area Transit Elements 

Existing intercity passenger rail service is provided on four principal corridors covering more than 

1,300 route mi (2,092 route km) and spanning almost the entire state. The No Project passenger rail 

network is composed of two of these corridors (Capitol corridor and San Joaquin corridor) as illustrated in 

Figure 2.4-1 and described below. Within these corridors, the intercity passenger service shares track 

with freight and/or commuter services. The primary portions of these corridors serve the same intercity 

markets as the proposed HST Alignment Alternatives. All the intercity passenger rail system 

improvements identified in the STIP and the Caltrans California Intercity Rail Capital Program for 

implementation prior to 2030 are included in the No Project Alternative and are identified in Appendix 

2-C-2. To increase levels of passenger service, the improvements consist of additional track capacity, 

maintenance and storage facilities, grade-crossing improvements, track and signal improvements, and 

expanded or upgraded passenger stations. 

The transit projects assumed as part of the No-Build project are listed in Appendix 2-C-1. This project list 

is consistent with the “Future Baseline” list assumed for the “Bay Area/California High-Speed Rail

Ridership and Revenue Forecasting Study,” which provided the ridership numbers for this EIR/EIS. 

2.5 High-Speed Train Alternatives 

HST Network Alternatives represent different ways to combine HST Alignment Alternatives and station 

location options to implement the HST system in the study region. This Program EIR/EIS focuses on 

analysis and describes overall effects related to HST Alignment Alternatives. Because there are many 

possible combinations of alignments and stations, representative HST Network Alternatives are 

considered and described to better understand the implications of selection of certain alignment 

alternatives and station location options. Representative network alternatives are shown in Table 2.5-1. 

The network alternatives vary in their ability to meet the purpose and need and objectives of the HST 

system and provide additional data to inform the future identification of preferred alignment alternatives 

and station location options. Although HST Alignment Alternatives and station location options were 

screened and evaluated to identify those that are likely to be reasonable and practicable and to meet the 

project’s purpose and need, the representative network alternatives have not yet been so evaluated. The 

network alternatives were developed to enable an evaluation and comparison of how various 

combinations of alignment alternatives would meet the project’s purpose and need and how each would 

perform as a HST network (e.g., travel times between various station locations, anticipated ridership, 

operating and maintenance costs, energy consumption, and auto trip diversions). Extensive summary 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 2 Alternatives 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 2-23

data about the network alternatives are presented in Chapter 7, and important differences are identified 

to inform decision makers and the public in the Summary. 

The different system characteristics, as well as environmental factors of the network alternatives, present 

complex choices. Informed by public review and comment on the draft Program EIR/EIS, the Authority 

prepared the evaluation for consideration by the Authority board after the public comment period. 

Chapter 8 of this final Program EIR/EIS presents this evaluation and identifies the preferred HST 

Alignment Alternatives and station location options, as well as the Preferred HST Network Alternative. 

Table 2.5-1 

Summary Table of Representative High-Speed Train Network Alternatives 

Network Alternatives Alignments for Representative Alternative 

Altamont Pass 

San Francisco and San Jose 

Termini 

Caltrain Corridor (San Francisco to Dumbarton) 

Dumbarton (High Bridge)1

Niles/I-880 (Niles Junction to San Jose via I-880)2

East Bay Connection (Dumbarton/Niles XS) 

UPRR (Niles to Altamont) 

Tracy Downtown (UPRR Connection) 

UPRR (Central Valley) 

Oakland and San Jose Termini Niles /I-880(West Oakland to Niles Junction) 

Niles /I-880 (Niles Junction to San Jose via I-880)2

East Bay Connections (Dumbarton/Niles XN and Dumbarton/Niles XS) 

UPRR (Niles to Altamont) 

Tracy Downtown (UPRR Connection) 

UPRR (Central Valley) 

San Francisco, Oakland, and San 

Jose Termini 

Caltrain Corridor (San Francisco to Dumbarton) 

Dumbarton (High Bridge)1

Niles /I-880(West Oakland to Niles Junction) 

Niles /I-880 (Niles Junction to San Jose via I-880)2

East Bay Connections (Dumbarton/Niles XN and Dumbarton/Niles XS) 

UPRR (Niles to Altamont) 

Tracy Downtown (UPRR Connection) 

UPRR (Central Valley) 

San Jose Terminus Niles /I-880 (Niles Junction to San Jose via I-880) 2

East Bay Connection (Dumbarton/Niles XS) 

UPRR (Niles to Altamont) 

Tracy Downtown (UPRR Connection) 

UPRR (Central Valley) 

San Francisco Terminus Caltrain Corridor (San Francisco to Dumbarton) 

Dumbarton (High Bridge)1

UPRR (Niles to Altamont) 

Tracy Downtown (UPRR Connection) 

UPRR (Central Valley) 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 2 Alternatives 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 2-24

Network Alternatives Alignments for Representative Alternative 

Altamont Pass (continued)

Oakland Terminus Niles /I-880(West Oakland to Niles Junction) 

East Bay Connection (Dumbarton/Niles XN) 

UPRR (Niles to Altamont) 

Tracy Downtown (UPRR Connection) 

UPRR (Central Valley) 

Union City Terminus Niles /I-880(Union City BART to Niles Junction) 

East Bay Connection (Dumbarton/Niles XN) 

UPRR (Niles to Altamont) 

Tracy Downtown (UPRR Connection) 

UPRR (Central Valley) 

San Francisco and San Jose – via 

SF Peninsula 

Caltrain Corridor (San Francisco to Dumbarton) 

Caltrain (Dumbarton to San Jose) 

Dumbarton (High Bridge) 

UPRR (Niles to Altamont) 

Tracy Downtown (UPRR Connection) 

UPRR (Central Valley) 

San Francisco, San Jose, and 

Oakland – with no San Francisco 

Bay Crossing 

Caltrain Corridor (San Francisco to Dumbarton) 

Caltrain (Dumbarton to San Jose) 

Niles /I-880(West Oakland to Niles Junction) 

Niles /I-880 (Niles Junction to San Jose via I-880)2

East Bay Connections (Dumbarton/Niles XN and Dumbarton/Niles XS) 

UPRR (Niles to Altamont) 

Tracy Downtown (UPRR Connection) 

UPRR (Central Valley) 

Oakland and San Francisco – via 

Transbay Tube 

Transbay Crossing – Transbay Transit Center 

Niles /I-880(West Oakland to Niles Junction) 

East Bay Connection (Dumbarton/Niles XN) 

UPRR (Niles to Altamont) 

Tracy Downtown (UPRR Connection)

UPRR (Central Valley) 

San Jose, Oakland, and San 

Francisco – via Transbay Tube 

Transbay Crossing – Transbay Transit Center 

Niles /I-880(West Oakland to Niles Junction) 

Niles /I-880 (Niles Junction to San Jose via I-880)2

East Bay Connections (Dumbarton/Niles XN and Dumbarton/Niles XS) 

UPRR (Niles to Altamont) 

Tracy Downtown (UPRR Connection) 

UPRR (Central Valley) 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 2 Alternatives 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 2-25

Pacheco Pass 

San Francisco and San Jose 

Termini 

Caltrain Corridor (San Francisco to Dumbarton) 

Caltrain (Dumbarton to San Jose) 

Pacheco (San Jose to Western Valley) 

Henry Miller (Western Valley to BNSF/UPRR) 

Henry Miller UPRR Connection 

BNSF - UPRR 

Oakland and San Jose Termini Niles /I-880(West Oakland to Niles Junction) 

Niles /I-880 (Niles Junction to San Jose via I-880) 

Pacheco (San Jose to Western Valley) 

Henry Miller (Western Valley to BNSF/UPRR) 

Henry Miller UPRR Connection 

BNSF - UPRR 

San Francisco, 

Oakland, and San Jose Termini 

Caltrain Corridor (San Francisco to Dumbarton) 

Caltrain (Dumbarton to San Jose) 

Niles /I-880(West Oakland to Niles Junction) 

Niles /I-880 (Niles Junction to San Jose via I-880) 

Pacheco (San Jose to Western Valley) 

Henry Miller (Western Valley to BNSF/UPRR) 

Henry Miller UPRR Connection 

BNSF - UPRR 

San Jose Terminus Pacheco (San Jose to Western Valley) 

Henry Miller (Western Valley to BNSF/UPRR) 

Henry Miller UPRR Connection 

BNSF - UPRR 

San Jose, San Francisco, and 

Oakland – via Transbay Tube 

Transbay Crossing – Transbay Transit Center 

Caltrain Corridor (San Francisco to Dumbarton) 

Caltrain (Dumbarton to San Jose) 

Pacheco (San Jose to Western Valley) 

Henry Miller (Western Valley to BNSF/UPRR) 

Henry Miller UPRR Connection 

BNSF - UPRR 

San Jose, Oakland, and San 

Francisco – via Transbay Tube 

Transbay Crossing – Transbay Transit Center 

Niles /I-880(West Oakland to Niles Junction) 

Niles /I-880 (Niles Junction to San Jose via I-880) 

Pacheco (San Jose to Western Valley) 

Henry Miller (Western Valley to BNSF/UPRR) 

Henry Miller UPRR Connection 

BNSF - UPRR 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 2 Alternatives 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 2-26

Pacheco Pass with Altamont Pass (Local Service) 

San Francisco and San Jose 

Termini 

Caltrain Corridor (San Francisco to Dumbarton) 

Caltrain (Dumbarton to San Jose) 

Dumbarton (High Bridge) 

UPRR (Niles to Altamont)3

Tracy Downtown (UPRR Connection)4

UPRR (Central Valley) 

Pacheco (San Jose to Western Valley) 

Henry Miller (Western Valley to BNSF/UPRR) 

Henry Miller UPRR Connection 

Oakland and San Jose Termini Niles /I-880(West Oakland to Niles Junction) 

Niles /I-880 (Niles Junction to San Jose via I-880) 

East Bay Connections (Dumbarton/Niles XN & Dumbarton/Niles XS) 

UPRR (Niles to Altamont)3

Tracy Downtown (UPRR Connection)4

UPRR (Central Valley) 

Pacheco (San Jose to Western Valley) 

Henry Miller (Western Valley to BNSF/UPRR) 

Henry Miller UPRR Connection 

San Francisco, Oakland, and San 

Jose Termini 

(without Dumbarton Bridge) 

Caltrain Corridor (San Francisco to Dumbarton) 

Caltrain (Dumbarton to San Jose) 

Niles /I-880(West Oakland to Niles Junction) 

Niles /I-880 (Niles Junction to San Jose via I-880) 

East Bay Connections (Dumbarton/Niles XN and Dumbarton/Niles XS) 

UPRR (Niles to Altamont)3

Tracy Downtown (UPRR Connection)4

UPRR (Central Valley) 

Pacheco (San Jose to Western Valley) 

Henry Miller (Western Valley to BNSF/UPRR) 

Henry Miller UPRR Connection 

San Jose Terminus Niles /I-880 (Niles Junction to San Jose via I-880) 2

East Bay Connection (Dumbarton/Niles XS) 

UPRR (Niles to Altamont)3

Tracy Downtown (UPRR Connection)4

UPRR (Central Valley) 

Pacheco (San Jose to Western Valley) 

Henry Miller (Western Valley to BNSF/UPRR) 

Henry Miller UPRR Connection 

1

 Does not include Dumbarton Wye South to Caltrain segment. 

2

 Does not include Niles Junction to Niles Wye South (Niles/I-880 5A) segment. 

3

 Does not include “express tracks” through Pleasanton station. 

4

 Does not include “express tracks” through Tracy station.
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 2 Alternatives 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 2-27

2.5.1 HST Alignment Alternatives and Station Location Options 

Informed by previous studies and the scoping process, the Authority and the FRA evaluated potential HST 

Alignment Alternatives in the study region and defined those that best meet the project purpose, which is 

to provide a reliable high-speed electrified train system that links the major Bay Area cities to the Central 

Valley, Sacramento, and Southern California, and that delivers predictable and consistent travel times. 

Further objectives are to provide interfaces between the HST system and major commercial airports, 

mass transit and the highway network and to relieve capacity constraints of the existing transportation 

system in a manner sensitive to and protective of the Bay Area’s and California’s unique natural 

resources. The study region is shown in Figure 1.1-1. The Authority and FRA conducted a screening 

evaluation to identify potential alignment alternatives and station location options that are anticipated to 

be practicable, reasonable, and feasible for further consideration in this Program EIR/EIS. These 

alignment alternatives and station location options are shown in Figure 2.5-1 and described as part of this 

section. 

The screening evaluation included the following activities: 

• Review of alignment alternatives and station location options identified in previous studies in the 

study region. 

• Identification of alignment alternatives and station location options not previously evaluated. 

• Evaluation of alignment alternatives and station location options using standardized engineering, 

environmental, and financial criteria and evaluation methodologies. 

• Evaluation of alignment alternatives and station location options against defined objectives. 

The alignment and station-screening evaluation was combined with public and agency input that together 

provided the Authority and the FRA with the necessary information to identify a reasonable range of 

alignment, station location, and HST corridor options. The evaluation of potential HST Alignment 

Alternatives and station location options within viable corridors used the following standardized criteria: 

• Construction: Substantial engineering and construction complexity as well as excessive initial and/or 

recurring costs were considered criteria for project impracticability because they present logistical 

constraints. 

• Environment: A high potential for considerable impacts to natural resources including water 

resources, streams, floodplains, wetlands, and habitat of threatened or endangered species was 

considered a criterion for failing to meet project objectives. 

• Land Use Compatibility: Substantial incompatibility with current or planned local land use as defined 

in local plans was considered a criterion for failing to meet project objectives. 

• Right-of-Way: A lack of available right-of-way or extensive right-of-way needs that would result in 

excessively high acquisition costs for a corridor, technology, alignment, or station were considered 

criteria for project impracticability. 

• Connectivity/Accessibility: Limited connectivity with other transportation modes (aviation, highway, 

or transit systems) that would impair the service quality and could reduce ridership of the HST 

system was considered a criterion for failing to satisfy the project purpose. 

• Ridership/Revenue: Longer trip times or suboptimal operating characteristics that would result in low 

ridership and revenue were considered criteria for failing to satisfy the project purpose. 

Table 2.5-2 presents the relationship of objectives and criteria applied in the screening evaluation. The 

objectives and criteria used in this evaluation represent further refinement of those used in previous 

studies and incorporated the HST system performance goals and criteria. Alignment alternatives and 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 2 Alternatives 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 2-28

station location options were considered and compared based on these established objectives and 

criteria. 

Table 2.5-2 

High-Speed Rail Alignment and Station Evaluation Objectives and Criteria 

Objective Criteria 

Maximize ridership/revenue potential Travel time 

Length 

Population/employment catchment area 

Maximize connectivity and accessibility Intermodal connections 

Minimize operating and capital costs Length 

Operational issues 

Construction issues 

Capital cost 

Right-of-way issues/cost 

Maximize compatibility with existing and 

planned development 

Land use compatibility and conflicts 

Visual quality impacts 

Minimize impacts on natural resources Water resources impacts 

Floodplain impacts 

Wetland impacts 

Threatened and endangered species impacts 

Minimize impacts on social and economic 

resources 

Environmental justice impacts (demographics) 

Farmland impacts 

Minimize impacts on cultural and 

parks/wildlife refuge resources 

Cultural resources impacts 

Parks and recreation impacts 

Wildlife refuge impacts 

Maximize avoidance of areas with geologic 

and soils constraints 

Soils/slope constraints 

Seismic constraints 

Maximize avoidance of areas with potential 

hazardous materials 

Hazardous materials/waste constraints 

Engineering criteria, such as operational, construction, and right-of-way issues, were evaluated 

qualitatively. The screening evaluation criteria are consistent with the criteria applied in the previous 

studies. The criteria related to HST operations are based on accepted engineering practices, the criteria 

and experiences of other railway and HST systems, and the comments of HST manufacturers. 

The broad objectives and criteria related to the environment used for evaluation reflect the objectives of 

NEPA and CEQA and are consistent with the objective of the CWA Section 404(b)(1) to provide 

consideration of alternatives to minimize impacts on waters of the United States. The environmental 

constraints and impacts criteria focus on environmental issues that can affect the location or selection of 

alignments and stations. 

The results of the alignment and station evaluation are described in the Draft Alignment Alternatives and 

Potential Station Location Options Report (California High-Speed Rail Authority and Federal Railroad 

Administration 2006), which was presented at the March 22, 2006, Authority Board meeting, and the 

Additional Potential HST Alignments and Stations Considered but Rejected Report, which was presented 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Bay Area to Central Valley—High-Speed Train Alig

Station Location Options Carried Forward fo

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 2 Alternatives 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 2-29

at the August 9, 2006, Authority Board meeting. Some alignment alternatives and station location 

options were considered and removed from further study. 

• For most of the alignment alternatives and station location options not carried forward, failure to 

meet the general project purpose and objectives and practicability constraints were the primary 

reasons for elimination. 

• Environmental criteria were considered a reason for elimination when an alignment alternative or 

station location option had considerably more probable environmental impacts than other practicable 

alignment alternatives or station location options for the same corridor. 

• General project purpose and objectives were considered in terms of ridership potential, connectivity 

and accessibility, incompatibility with existing or planned development, and severe operational 

constraints. 

• Practicability constraints were considered in terms of cost, constructability, right-of-way constraints, 

and other technical issues. To assess the constructability of tunnels, some specific thresholds were 

established to help guide the evaluation. Continuous tunnel lengths of more than 12 mi (19 km) 

were considered impracticable, and the crossing of major fault zones at grade was also identified as a 

necessary criterion. For other practicability considerations (e.g., right-of-way constraints, 

construction issues, costs) thresholds could not be established for this program-level evaluation and 

impracticability was determined based on professional judgment. 

Environmental constraints are identified for alignment alternatives only if they constituted primary 

reasons for elimination. The remaining alignment alternatives and station location options were 

determined to generally meet the objectives described in the purpose and need and are analyzed in detail 

in this Program EIR/EIS. 

Proposed HST Alignment Alternatives are generally configured along or adjacent to existing rail 

transportation facilities, instead of creating new transportation corridors. Although a wide range of 

options have been considered, the Authority’s initial conceptual approach, previous corridor evaluations, 

and the evaluation conducted as part of this Program EIR/EIS have consistently shown a potential for 

fewer substantial environmental impacts along existing highway and rail facilities than on new alignments 

through both developed and undeveloped areas. Although increasing the overall width of existing 

facilities could have potential impacts on the amount of land disturbed similar to those of creating new 

facilities, creating new facilities would also introduce potential incompatibility and severance issues in 

both urban communities and rural settings (farmlands, open spaces). 

The station location options described in this section were identified generally and represent the most 

likely sites based on current knowledge, consistent with the objective to serve the state’s major 

population centers. There is a critical tradeoff between accessibility of the system to potential 

passengers and the resulting HST travel times (i.e., more closely spaced stations will lengthen the travel 

times for local service as well as express services). The station locations shown here are spaced 

approximately 50 mi (80 km) apart in rural areas and 15 mi (24 km) apart in the metropolitan areas. 

Additional or more closely spaced stations would negatively affect travel times and the ability to operate 

both express and local services. 

Several key factors were considered in identifying potential station stops, including speed, cost, local 

access times, potential connections with other modes of transportation, ridership potential, and 

distribution of population and major destinations along the route. Again, the ultimate locations and 

configurations of stations cannot be determined until the project-level environmental process has been 

completed. 

As part of the development of the Bay Area Regional Rail Plan (Section 2.3.3), some HST Alignment 

Alternatives are being were considered for regional rail “overlay” services that would be implemented by 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 2 Alternatives 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 2-30

other transportation agencies in cooperation with the Authority. Overlay services would involve operating 

regional commuter trains on the HST infrastructure and serving additional non-HST regional rail stations. 

These regional rail stations and services are not integral to the HST system and are not alternatives in 

this Program EIR/EIS; however, they are considered in the cumulative analysis of HST Alignment 

Alternatives as related but separate potential projects. 

To facilitate this analysis, the study area was divided into six corridors within the study region: 

• San Francisco to San Jose. 

• Oakland to San Jose. 

• San Jose to Central Valley. 

• East Bay to Central Valley. 

• San Francisco Bay Crossings. 

• Central Valley Alignment. 

These corridors connect different parts of the study region and are fundamentally different and distinct in 

terms of land use, terrain, and construction configuration (mix of at-grade, aerial structure, and tunnel 

sections). The HST Alignment Alternatives and station location options considered in each corridor of the 

study region are discussed below. Table 2.5-3 shows the HST Alignment Alternatives, which are made up 

of alignment segments. Table 2.5-3 also lists the segments by map name and location description. 

Figure 2.5-2 illustrates the segment breakdown of each of the alignment alternatives. The analyses in 

Chapter 3, “Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies,” compile and 

report information about the affected environment and environmental consequences for each alignment 

alternative and segment as outlined in the tables. The purpose of Chapter 7, “High-Speed Train Network 

and Alignment Alternatives Comparisons,” is to summarize and compare the physical and operational 

characteristics and potential environmental consequences associated with the HST Network Alternatives 

and for the various HST Alignment Alternatives within the six corridors. The HST Alignment Alternatives 

and station location options are described below. 

Table 2.5-3 

Summary Table of Alignment Alternatives and Station Location Options 

Corridor 

Possible 

Alignmentsa

 

Alignment 

Alternativeb

Segmentc

Map Name 

(Figure 2.5-2) Location Description 

San Francisco 

to San Jose: 

Caltrain 

1 of 1 San Francisco to 

Dumbarton Caltrain 1 Transbay Transit Center to 4th/Townsend 

Caltrain 2 4th/Townsend to Millbrae/SFO 

Caltrain 3 Millbrae/SFO to Redwood City 

Caltrain 4 Redwood City to Caltrain 

1 of 1 Dumbarton to San 

Jose 

Caltrain 5 Caltrain to Dumbarton Wye 

Caltrain 6 Dumbarton Wye to Palo Alto 

Caltrain 7 Palo Alto to Santa Clara 

Caltrain 8 Santa Clara to Diridon Station 

Station Location Options 

Transbay Transit Center 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 2 Alternatives 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 2-31

Corridor 

Possible 

Alignmentsa 

Alignment 

Alternativeb

Segmentc

Map Name 

(Figure 2.5-2) Location Description 

4th and King (Caltrain) 

Millbrae/SFO 

Redwood City (Caltrain) 

Palo Alto (Caltrain) 

Oakland to San 

Jose: Niles/I880 

1 of 2 

West Oakland to 

Niles Junction 

Niles/I-880 1A West Oakland to Jack London 

Square 

Niles/I-880 2 (A 

&B) 

Jack London Square to Oakland 

Coliseum 

Niles/I-880 3A Oakland Coliseum to Union City 

(BART) 

Niles/I-880 4A Union City (BART) to Niles Junction 

12th Street/City 

Center to Niles 

Junction 

Niles/I-880 1B 12th Street/City Center to Jack 

London Square Niles 

Niles/I-880 2 (A & 

B) 

Jack London Square to Oakland 

Coliseum 

Niles/I-880 3A Oakland Coliseum to Union City 

(BART) 

Niles/I-880 4A Union City (BART) to Niles Junction 

1 of 2 Niles Junction to 

San Jose via 

Trimble 

Niles/I-880 5A Niles Junction to Niles Wye (S) 

Niles/I-880 5B Niles Wye (S) to Warm Springs 

Niles/I-880 6 Warm Springs to Trimble Rd. 

Niles/I-880 7B Trimble Rd. Option 

Caltrain 8 Santa Clara to Diridon Station 

Niles Junction to 

San Jose via I-880 

Niles/I-880 5A Niles Junction to Niles Wye (S) 

Niles/I-880 5B Niles Wye (S) to Warm Springs 

Niles/I-880 6 Warm Springs to Trimble Rd. 

Niles/I-880 7A I-880 – Trimble Rd. to Diridon 

Station Location Options 

West Oakland/7th Street 

12th Street/City Center 

Coliseum/Airport 

Union City (BART) 

Fremont (Warm Springs) 

San Jose to 

Central Valley: 

Pacheco Pass 

1 of 1 Pacheco Pacheco 1 Diridon to Morgan Hill 

Pacheco 2 Morgan Hill to Gilroy 

Pacheco 3 Gilroy to San Luis Reservoir 

1 of 3 Henry Miller Pacheco 4 San Luis Reservoir to Valley Floor 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 2 Alternatives 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 2-32

Corridor 

Possible 

Alignmentsa 

Alignment 

Alternativeb

Segmentc

Map Name 

(Figure 2.5-2) Location Description 

(UPRR 

Connection) 

HM-1 Western Valley to Henry Miller UP 

Wye 

HM-2 Henry Miller UP North Wye to UP 

South Wye 

HM/UP-XN Henry Miller Wye North to UPRR 

HM/UP-XS Henry Miller Wye South to UPRR 

Henry Miller (BNSF 

Connection)

Pacheco 4 San Luis Reservoir to Valley Floor 

HM-1 Western Valley to Henry Miller UP 

Wye 

HM-2 Henry Miller UP North Wye to UP 

South Wye 

HM-3 Henry Miller UP South Wye to BNSF 

Wyes 

HM/BN-XN Henry Miller Wye North to BNSF 

HM/BN-XS Henry Miller Wye South to BNSF 

 GEA North GEA-1 San Luis Reservoir to Atwater Wye 

GEA-BNSF XN GEA Atwater Wye North to BNSF 

GEA-UPRR XS GEA Atwater Wye South to Merced 

UP 

Station Location Options 

San Jose (Diridon) 

Morgan Hill (Caltrain) 

Gilroy (Caltrain) 

East Bay to 

Central Valley: 

Altamont Pass

1 of 4 

I-680/ 580/UPRR UPRR 2 (A & B) Niles Canyon to Sunol 

I-680/580/UPRR 1 Sunol to Dublin/Pleasanton BART 

I-680/580/UPRR 2 Dublin/Pleasanton BART to El Charo 

Road 

I-680/580/UPRR 3 El Charo Road to Livermore (I-580) 

I-680/580/UPRR 4 Livermore (I-580) to Greenville 

I-680/580/UPRR 5 Greenville to Altamont Pass 

UPRR 9 Altamont Pass to County Line 

I-580/UPRR UPRR 2 (A & B) Niles Canyon to Sunol 

UPRR 3 Sunol to Pleasanton 

UPRR 4 Pleasanton to El Charo 

Pleasanton X UPRR to I-580 connector 

I-680/580/UPRR 3 El Charo Road to Livermore (I-580) 

I-680/580/UPRR 4 Livermore (I-580) to Greenville 

I-680/580/UPRR 5 Greenville to Altamont Pass 

UPRR 9 Altamont Pass to County Line 

Patterson 

Pass/UPRR 

UPRR 2 (A & B) Niles Canyon to Sunol 

UPRR 3 Sunol to Pleasanton 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 2 Alternatives 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 2-33

Corridor 

Possible 

Alignmentsa 

Alignment 

Alternativeb

Segmentc

Map Name 

(Figure 2.5-2) Location Description 

UPRR 4 Pleasanton to El Charo 

UPRR 5 El Charo to Livermore 

UPRR 6 Livermore to Patterson Pass cut off 

Patterson Pass Patterson Pass 

UPRR UPRR 2 (A & B) Niles Canyon to Sunol 

UPRR 3 Sunol to Pleasanton 

UPRR 4 Pleasanton to El Charo 

UPRR 5 El Charo to Livermore 

UPRR 6 Livermore to Patterson Pass cut off 

UPRR 7 Patterson Pass cut off to Greenville 

UPRR 8 Greenville to Altamont Pass 

UPRR 9 Altamont Pass to County Line 

1 of 4 

Tracy Downtown 

(BNSF 

Connection) 

UPRR 10 County Line to Tracy Downtown 

UPRR 11 Tracy Downtown to I-205 

UPRR 12 I-205 to S. UPRR 

UPRR 13 I-205 to Lathrop – northern 

MC-1 Southwestern Manteca 

MC-2 Southeastern Manteca 

MC-5 Northern Escaton Wye to BNSF 

MC-6 Southern Escaton Wye to BNSF 

(part 1) 

MC-7 Southern Escaton Wye to BNSF 

(part 2) 

Tracy ACE Station 

(BNSF 

Connection) 

S UPRR 1 County Line to South of Tracy 

S UPRR 2 South of Tracy to Tracy ACE Station 

S UPRR 3 Tracy ACE Station to I-205 

S UPRR 4 I-205 to Southeast of Manteca 

S UPRR 5 I-205 to Lathrop – Southern 

MC-1 Southwestern Manteca 

MC-2 Southeastern Manteca 

MC-5 Northern Escaton Wye to BNSF 

MC-6 Southern Escaton Wye to BNSF 

(part 1) 

MC-7 Southern Escaton Wye to BNSF 

(part 2) 

Tracy ACE Station 

(UPRR 

Connection) 

S UPRR 1 County Line to South of Tracy 

S UPRR 2 South of Tracy to Tracy ACE Station 

S UPRR 3 Tracy ACE Station to I-205 

S UPRR 4 I-205 to Southeast of Manteca 

MC-1 Southwestern Manteca 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 2 Alternatives 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 2-34

Corridor 

Possible 

Alignmentsa 

Alignment 

Alternativeb

Segmentc

Map Name 

(Figure 2.5-2) Location Description 

MC-2 Southeastern Manteca 

MC-3 Eastern Manteca UPRR South to 

BNSF 

MC-4 Manteca to Escaton Wye 

Tracy Downtown 

(UPRR 

Connection) 

UPRR 10 County Line to Tracy Downtown 

UPRR 11 Tracy Downtown to I-205 

UPRR 12 I-205 to S. UPRR 

UPRR 13 I-205 to Lathrop – northern 

MC-1 Southwestern Manteca 

MC-2 Southeastern Manteca 

 MC-3 Eastern Manteca UPRR South to 

BNSF 

MC-4 Manteca to Escaton Wye 

2 of 2 East Bay 

Connections 

 Dumbarton/Niles 

XN 

Niles to Union City – Niles Wye (E) 

to Niles Wye (N) 

 Dumbarton/Niles 

XS 

Niles to Fremont – Niles Wye (E) to 

Niles Wye (S) 

Station Location Options 

Pleasanton (I-680/Bernal Rd) 

Pleasanton (BART) 

Livermore (Downtown) 

Livermore (I-580) 

Livermore (Greenville Road/UPRR) 

Livermore (Greenville Road/I-580) 

Tracy (Downtown) 

Tracy (ACE) 

San Francisco 

Bay Crossings 

1 of 2 

Trans Bay 

Crossing – 

Transbay Transit 

Center 

TB-1 Transbay Transit Center tube to SF 

Bay 

TB-3 SF Bay to West Oakland 

Trans Bay 

Crossing – 4th & 

King 

TB-2 4th/Townsend tube to SF Bay 

TB-3 SF Bay to West Oakland 

1 of 6 

Dumbarton (High 

Bridge) 

Dumbarton XN Dumbarton Wye North to Caltrain 

Dumbarton XS Dumbarton Wye South to Caltrain 

Dumbarton 1 

(High Bridge) 

Dumbarton Bay Crossing to Don 

Edwards 

Dunbarton-2 Don Edwards to Shinn (Centerville 

Line) 

UPRR 1 Shinn to Niles Wye (E) 

Dumbarton Dumbarton XN Dumbarton Wye North to Caltrain 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 2 Alternatives 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 2-35

Corridor 

Possible 

Alignmentsa 

Alignment 

Alternativeb

Segmentc

Map Name 

(Figure 2.5-2) Location Description 

(Low Bridge) Dumbarton XS Dumbarton Wye South to Caltrain 

Dumbarton 1 (Low 

Bridge) 

Dumbarton Bay Crossing to Don 

Edwards 

Dumbarton-2 Don Edwards to Shinn (Centerville 

Line) 

UPRR 1 Shinn to Niles Wye (E) 

Dumbarton (Tube) Dumbarton XN Dumbarton Wye North to Caltrain 

Dumbarton XS Dumbarton Wye South to Caltrain 

Dumbarton 1 

(Tube) 

Dumbarton Bay Crossing to Don 

Edwards 

Dunbarton-2 Don Edwards to Shinn (Centerville 

Line) 

UPRR 1 Shinn to Niles Wye (E) 

Fremont Central 

Park 

(High Bridge) 

Dumbarton XN Dumbarton Wye North to Caltrain 

Dumbarton XS Dumbarton Wye South to Caltrain 

Dumbarton 1 Dumbarton Bay Crossing to Don 

Edwards 

Fremont Central 

Park (High Bridge) 

Don Edwards to Niles (E) via 

Fremont Central Park 

Fremont Central 

Park 

(Low Bridge) 

Dumbarton XN Dumbarton Wye North to Caltrain 

Dumbarton XS Dumbarton Wye South to Caltrain 

Dumbarton 1 Dumbarton Bay Crossing to Don 

Edwards 

Fremont Central 

Park (Low Bridge) 

Don Edwards to Niles Wye (E) via 

Fremont Central Park 

Fremont Central 

Park 

(Tube) 

Dumbarton XN Dumbarton Wye North to Caltrain 

Dumbarton XS Dumbarton Wye South to Caltrain 

Dumbarton 1 Dumbarton Bay Crossing to Don 

Edwards 

Fremont Central 

Park (Tube) 

Don Edwards to Niles Wye (E) via 

Fremont Central Park 

Station Location Options

Union City (Shinn) 

Central Valley 

1 of 6 

BNSF – UPRR BNSF N/S 1 North Stockton South to UPRR 

Connection 

BNSF N/S 2 BNSF Parallel to UPRR tracks 

BNSF N/S 3 Parallel tracks South through 

Escaton 

BNSF N/S 4 Escaton South to Amtrak Briggsmore 

BNSF N/S 5 Amtrak Briggsmore to UPRR/BNSF 

Connection 

BNSF N/S 6 UPRR/BNSF Connection to Atwater 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 2 Alternatives 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 2-36

Corridor 

Possible 

Alignmentsa 

Alignment 

Alternativeb

Segmentc

Map Name 

(Figure 2.5-2) Location Description 

BNSF N/S 7 Atwater to Downtown Merced 

UPRR N/S 8 Merced South to BNSF Connection 

UPRR N/S 9 BNSF Connection South to Henry 

Miller Wye 

UPRR N/S 10 BNSF Henry Miller Wye 

BNSF BNSF N/S 1 North Stockton South to UPRR 

Connection 

BNSF N/S 2 BNSF Parallel to UPRR tracks 

BNSF N/S 3 Parallel tracks South through 

Escaton 

BNSF N/S 4 Escaton South to Amtrak Briggsmore 

BNSF N/S 5 Amtrak Briggsmore to UPRR/BNSF 

Connection 

BNSF N/S 6 UPRR/BNSF Connection to Atwater 

BNSF N/S 7 Atwater to Downtown Merced 

BNSF N/S 8 Merced South to UPRR Connection 

BNSF N/S 9 UPRR Connection East to Castle 

Connection 

BNSF N/S 10 Castle Connection to Henry Miller 

Wye 

BNSF N/S 11 Henry Miller Wye 

UPRR N/S UPRR N/S 1 French Camp to Lathrop 

UPRR N/S 2 Lathrop through Manteca 

UPRR N/S 3 Manteca South to BNSF/UPRR 

UPRR N/S 4 BNSF/UPRR South to Modesto 

UPRR N/S 5(A or 

B) 

UPRR Modesto South – Western 

Option 

UPRR N/S 6 South Modesto to BNSF Connection 

UPRR N/S 7 BNSF Connection South to Merced 

UPRR N/S 8 Merced South to BNSF Connection 

UPRR N/S 9 BNSF Connection South to Henry 

Miller Wye 

UPRR N/S 10 BNSF Henry Miller Wye 

BNSF Castle BNSF N/S 1 North Stockton South to UPRR 

Connection 

BNSF N/S 2 BNSF Parallel to UPRR tracks 

BNSF N/S 3 Parallel tracks South through 

Escaton 

BNSF N/S 4 Escaton South to Amtrak Briggsmore 

BNSF N/S 5 Amtrak Briggsmore to UPRR/BNSF 

Connection 

BNSF Castle 1 From BNSF southeast to Castle AFB 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 2 Alternatives 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 2-37

Corridor 

Possible 

Alignmentsa 

Alignment 

Alternativeb

Segmentc

Map Name 

(Figure 2.5-2) Location Description 

BNSF Castle 2 Castle AFB South to BNSF connect 

BNSF Castle 3 BNSF South of Castle to UPRR 

Connect 

BNSF N/S 10 Castle Connection to Henry Miller 

Wye 

BNSF N/S 11 Henry Miller Wye 

UPRR – BNSF 

Castle 

UPRR N/S 1 French Camp to Lathrop 

UPRR N/S 2 Lathrop through Manteca 

UPRR N/S 3 Manteca South to BNSF/UPRR 

UPRR N/S 4 BNSF/UPRR South to Modesto 

UPRR N/S 5(A OR 

B) 

UPRR Modesto South – Western 

Option 

UPRR N/S 6 South Modesto to BNSF Connection 

UPRR – BNSF X2 North South Connection East of 

Stockton (South Portion) 

BNSF Castle 1 From BNSF southeast to Castle AFB 

BNSF Castle 2 Castle AFB South to BNSF connect 

BNSF Castle 3 BNSF South of Castle to UPRR 

Connect 

BNSF N/S 10 Castle Connection to Henry Miller 

Wye 

BNSF N/S 11 Henry Miller Wye 

UPRR – BNSF UPRR N/S 1 French Camp to Lathrop 

UPRR N/S 2 Lathrop through Manteca 

UPRR N/S 3 Manteca South to BNSF/UPRR 

UPRR N/S 4 BNSF/UPRR South to Modesto 

UPRR N/S 5(A OR 

B) 

UPRR Modesto South – Western 

Option 

UPRR N/S 6 South Modesto to BNSF Connection 

UPRR – BNSF X2 BNSF crossing to UPRR – Southeast 

of Turlock 

BNSF N/S 6 UPRR/BNSF Connection to Atwater 

BNSF N/S 7 Atwater to Downtown Merced 

UPRR N/S 8 Merced South to BNSF Connection 

UPRR N/S 9 BNSF Connection South to Henry 

Miller Wye 

UPRR N/S 10 BNSF Henry Miller Wye 

Station Location Options 

Modesto (Downtown) 

Briggsmore (Amtrak) 

Merced (Downtown) 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 2 Alternatives 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 2-38

Corridor 

Possible 

Alignmentsa 

Alignment 

Alternativeb

Segmentc

Map Name 

(Figure 2.5-2) Location Description 

Castle AFB 

a

 Several alignment alternatives will be selected to create representative HST Network Alternatives (Chapter 7). 

b

 Not every segment in an alignment would necessarily be selected to be considered as part of a network 

alternative. 

c

 A segment may be part of more than one alignment alternative. 

A. BAY AREA TO CENTRAL VALLEY ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES AND STATION LOCATION OPTIONS 

CARRIED FORWARD 

The alignment alternatives and station location options analyzed in this Program EIR/EIS are shown 

in Figure 2.5-1. Several operating scenarios for combinations of terminus stations were investigated, 

with HST Network Alternatives ranging from one to three termini (San Francisco, Oakland, and San 

Jose) for direct HST service to the Bay Area. Conceptual designs were developed for all of the 

alignment alternatives and station location options carried forward. These designs are illustrated in 

plan and profile sheets (Appendix 2-D), cross sections (Appendix 2-E), and station fact sheets 

(Appendix 2-F). Conceptual designs are based on Engineering Criteria (California High-Speed Rail 

Authority and Federal Railroad Administration 2004). Maps illustrating the horizontal alignment and 

profile type (aerial, at grade, or tunnel) are shown in Figure 2.5-3. 

The relation of each of the alignment alternatives to other existing transportation facilities is also a 

key aspect of the conceptual designs. This information defines the general physical characteristics of 

the alternatives for consideration in the environmental technical analyses presented in this Program 

EIR/EIS. Figure 2.5-4 illustrates the alignment characteristics (relation to existing corridors and 

proposed configurations) for the alignment alternatives carried forward. 

San Francisco to San Jose

The alignment alternatives and station location options in this corridor carried forward for further 

consideration are illustrated in Figure 2.5-5 and discussed below. 

Alignment Alternatives Carried Forward 

• Caltrain Alignment (Shared-Use Four-Track): From San Francisco, this alignment alternative 

would follow south along the Caltrain rail alignment to Dumbarton and from there to San Jose. 

This alignment alternative assumes that the HST system would share tracks with Caltrain 

commuter trains. The entire alignment would be grade separated. Station location options 

would include a station in the lower level of the proposed new Transbay Transit Center in San 

Francisco or a station at 4th and King Streets, a station in Millbrae to serve SFO, and a station in 

either Redwood City or Palo Alto. The Caltrain shared-use alignment would take advantage of 

the existing rail infrastructure and would be mostly at-grade. 

Station Location Options Carried Forward 

San Francisco 

• Transbay Transit Center: This potential station location would serve the Caltrain shared-use 

alignment as a downtown terminal station. 

• 4th and King (Caltrain): This potential station location would serve the Caltrain shared-use fourtrack alignment as a downtown terminal station. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 2 Alternatives 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 2-39

San Francisco International Airport 

• Millbrae: This potential station would serve as a connection with SFO. 

Mid-Peninsula 

• Redwood City (Caltrain): This potential station location would provide accessibility and serve the 

population between San Jose and San Francisco. 

• Palo Alto (Caltrain): This potential station location would provide accessibility and serve the 

population between San Jose and San Francisco. 

Oakland to San Jose

The alignment alternatives and station location options in this corridor carried forward for further 

consideration are illustrated in Figure 2.5-6 and discussed below. Figure 2.5-6A shows greater detail 

around Niles Junction. 

Alignment Alternatives Carried Forward 

• Niles Subdivision Line to I-880 (Niles/I-880): From Oakland, this alignment alternative would 

travel south following the UPRR’s Niles Subdivision Line (i.e., Hayward Line) transition to the 

UPRR’s Warm Springs Subdivision (Milpitas Line) at Niles Junction and then transition to the 

I-880. Station location options include Oakland, Oakland Airport and Union City (BART) or 

Fremont (Warm Springs). 

The alignment would be at-grade along the Niles Subdivision Line and on an aerial structure in 

the median of I-880. The I-880 HST portion would mostly be on an aerial configuration from 

Fremont to San Jose. This alignment would require the construction of columns and footings in 

the wide median of I-880. 

• Niles Subdivision Line to I-880 to Trimble Road (Niles/I-880/Trimble Rd.): From Oakland, this 

alignment alternative would travel south following the UPRR’s Niles Subdivision Line (i.e., 

Hayward Line), transition to the UPRR’s Warm Springs Subdivision (Milpitas Line) at Niles 

Junction and then transition to I-880 and then to Trimble Road. Station location options include 

Oakland, Oakland Airport, and Union City (BART) or Fremont (Warm Springs). 

The alignment would be at-grade along the Niles Subdivision Line and on an aerial structure in 

the median of I-880. The I-880 HST portion would mostly be on an aerial configuration from 

Fremont to San Jose. The Trimble Road segment would be on an aerial structure and in a tunnel 

(where adjacent to San Jose International Airport). This alignment would require the 

construction of columns and footings in the wide median of I-880. 

Station Location Options Carried Forward 

Oakland 

• West Oakland: This potential station location would serve Oakland the Niles/I-880 Alignment. 

• 12th Street/City Center: This potential station location would serve Oakland from the Niles/I-880 

Alignment 

Oakland International Airport 

• Coliseum/Airport BART Station: This potential station location would serve the Oakland Airport 

from the Niles/I-880 Line. 

Southern Alameda County 

• Union City (BART): This potential station location would serve the population centers between 

Oakland and San Jose from the Niles/ I-880 Line. 

• Fremont (Warm Springs): This potential station location would serve the population centers 

between Oakland and San Jose from the Niles/ I-880 Line. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 2 Alternatives 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 2-40

San Jose to Central Valley

The alignment alternatives and station location options in this corridor carried forward for further 

consideration are illustrated in Figure 2.5-7 and discussed below. 

Alignment Alternatives Carried Forward 

Pacheco Pass Alignments 

• Caltrain/Pacheco/Henry Miller Avenue: This alignment alternative would extend south along the 

Caltrain/UPRR rail corridor through the Pacheco Pass and a portion of the Grasslands Ecological 

Area (GEA) along Henry Miller Road and then across the San Joaquin Valley. Station location 

options include the existing San Jose (Diridon) Station and Gilroy (near the existing Caltrain 

Station) or Morgan Hill (near the existing Caltrain Station). 

• Caltrain/Pacheco/GEA North/Merced: This alignment alternative would extend south along the 

Caltrain/UPRR rail corridor through the Pacheco Pass, pass through the northern portion of the 

GEA and then across the San Joaquin Valley. Station location options include the existing 

San Jose (Diridon) Station and Morgan Hill (near the existing Caltrain Station) or Gilroy (near the 

existing Caltrain Station). 

Station Location Options Carried Forward 

San Jose 

• San Jose (Diridon): This potential station location would serve all alignments (Caltrain/Monterey 

Highway rights-of-way) out of San Jose. 

South Santa Clara County 

• Morgan Hill (Caltrain): This potential station location would serve all the Pacheco Pass alignment 

alternatives. 

• Gilroy (Caltrain): This potential station location would serve all the Pacheco Pass alignment 

alternatives. 

East Bay to Central Valley

The alignment alternatives and station locations in this corridor carried forward for further 

consideration are illustrated in Figure 2.5-8 and discussed below. 

Alignment Alternatives Carried Forward 

Altamont Pass 

• UPRR: This alignment alternative would extend east via a relatively direct routing (mostly in 

tunnel) between Niles Junction and I-680 then use the UPRR alignment through Pleasanton and 

Livermore before transitioning to the I-580 corridor through the Altamont Pass to Tracy. Station 

location options include the Pleasanton (Bernal/I-680) Station, Livermore (near downtown), or 

Livermore (Greenville Rd.) and Tracy (downtown) or Tracy (ACE). 

• I-580/UPRR: This alignment alternative would extend east via a relatively direct routing (mostly 

in tunnel) between Niles Junction and I-680 then use the UPRR alignment through Pleasanton 

before transitioning to the I-580 corridor through Livermore and the Altamont Pass to Tracy. 

Station location options include the Pleasanton (Bernal/I-680) Station, Livermore (I-580), or 

Livermore (Greenville Rd.) and Tracy (downtown) or Tracy (ACE). 

• I-580/I-680/UPRR: This alignment alternative would extend east via a relatively direct routing 

(mostly in tunnel) between Niles Junction and I-680 then use the I-680 alignment before 

transitioning I-580 corridor (at the I-580/I-680 junction). Station location options include the 

Pleasanton (BART) Station, Livermore (I-580), or Livermore (Greenville Rd.) and Tracy 

(downtown) or Tracy (ACE). 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

P
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Tra
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Figure 2.5-5

San Francisco to San Jose—Alignment

Alternatives and Station Location Options 

Carried Forward for Further Consideration
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Figure 2.5-6

Oakland to San Jose—Alignment 

Alternatives and Station Location Options 

Carried Forward for Further Consideration
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Figure 2.5-6A

Niles Junction—Alignment Alternatives and 

Station Location Options Carried Forward 

for Further Consideration
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

San Jose to Central Valley—Alignment A

Location Optio
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 2 Alternatives 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 2-41

• Patterson Pass/UPRR: This alignment alternative would extend east via a relatively direct routing 

(mostly in tunnel) between Niles Junction and I-680 then use the UPRR alignment through 

Pleasanton and Livermore before transitioning to the I-580 corridor through the Patterson Pass 

between Livermore and Tracy. Station location options include the Pleasanton (Bernal/I-680) 

Station, Livermore (near downtown), and Tracy (downtown) or Tracy (ACE). 

Station Location Options Carried Forward 

Tri-Valley 

• Pleasanton (1-680/Bernal Road): This potential station location would serve the Altamont 

I-580/UPRR alignment alternative and the Altamont UPRR alignment alternative. 

• Pleasanton (BART): This potential station location would serve the Altamont I-580/I-680/UPRR 

alignment alternative. 

• Livermore (Downtown): This potential station location would serve the Altamont UPRR alignment 

alternative. 

• Livermore (I-580): This potential station location would serve the Altamont I-580/I-680/UPRR 

alignment alternative and the Altamont I-580/UPRR alignment alternative. 

• Livermore (Greenville Road/UPRR): This potential station location would serve the Altamont 

UPRR alignment alternative. 

• Livermore (Greenville Road/I-580): This potential station location would serve the Altamont 

I-580/I-680/UPRR alignment alternative and the Altamont I-580/UPRR alignment alternative. 

Tracy 

• Tracy (Downtown): This potential station location would serve all Altamont Pass alignment 

alternatives. 

• Tracy (ACE): This potential station location would serve all Altamont Pass alignment alternatives. 

San Francisco Bay Crossings

The alignment alternatives carried forward in this corridor for further consideration are illustrated in 

Figures 2.5-9 and 2.5-10 and discussed below. 

Alignment Alternatives Carried Forward 

• New Transbay Tube: This alignment alternative would connect the Oakland (West Oakland or 

12th Street City Center) and San Francisco (Transbay Transit Center or 4th and King) HST stations 

via a new transbay tube. This alignment alternative could serve either Altamont Pass or Pacheco 

Pass alignment alternatives. 

• Dumbarton Rail Crossing (Centerville): This alignment alternative would serve the Altamont Pass 

alignment alternatives and link the East Bay to the Peninsula in the vicinity of the existing 

Dumbarton Rail Bridge. Between Niles Junction and the Dumbarton Bridge, this alignment would 

use the Centerville rail alignment. Possible designs for this alignment include use of an improved 

Dumbarton Rail Bridge (low level), a new high-level bridge, and a new transbay tube. 

• Dumbarton Rail Crossing (Fremont Central Park): This alignment alternative would serve the 

Altamont Pass alignment alternatives and link the East Bay to the Peninsula in the vicinity of the 

existing Dumbarton Rail Bridge. Between Niles Junction and the Dumbarton Bridge, this 

alignment would use an existing utility alignment and a new alignment through the Don Edwards 

Natural Wildlife Refuge. This alignment would require tunneling under Fremont Central Park. 

Possible designs for this alignment include use of an improved Dumbarton Rail Bridge (low level), 

a new high-level bridge, and a new transbay tube. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 2 Alternatives 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 2-42

Station Location Options Carried Forward 

Southern Alameda County 

• Union City (Shinn): This potential station would serve the population centers between Oakland 

and San Jose only for Altamont Pass (East Bay to Central Valley) alignment alternatives using the 

Dumbarton Rail Crossing (Centerville) connection to the San Francisco Peninsula. 

Central Valley 

The alignment alternatives and station location options in this corridor carried forward for further 

consideration are illustrated in Figure 2.5-11 and discussed below. 

Alignment Alternatives Carried Forward 

• BNSF Rail Line: This alignment alternative would connect with either the Altamont or Pacheco 

Pass alignment alternatives. This north-south alignment would link the Bay Area to Central 

Valley population centers, Sacramento, and southern California. Station location options include 

Modesto (Briggsmore) and Merced (Downtown and Castle AFB). 

• UPRR Line: This alignment alternative would connect with either the Altamont or Pacheco Pass 

alignment alternatives. This north-south alignment would link the Bay Area to Central Valley 

population centers, Sacramento, and southern California. Station location options include 

Modesto (Downtown) and Merced (Downtown and Castle AFB). 

Station Location Options Carried Forward 

Modesto 

• Downtown Modesto: This potential station location would serve the Altamont Pass and Pacheco 

Pass alignment alternatives using the UPRR alignment alternative. 

• Briggsmore (Amtrak): This potential station location would serve Altamont Pass and Pacheco 

Pass alignment alternatives using the BNSF alignment alternative. 

Merced 

• Downtown Merced: This potential station location would serve all Altamont Pass and Pacheco 

Pass alignment alternatives. 

• Castle AFB: This potential station would serve all Altamont Pass and Pacheco Pass alignment 

alternatives. 

2.5.2 Alignment Alternatives and Station Locations Considered and Rejected 

The following HST Alignment Alternatives and station location options were considered but rejected from 

further consideration in the statewide program EIR/EIS for the HST system (California High-Speed Rail 

Authority and Federal Railroad Administration 2005) and this Program EIR/EIS process (Figure 2.5-12). 

The reasons for elimination of each of the alignments evaluated are categorically summarized in Table 

2.5-4 and further described in Appendix 2-G. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

East Bay to Central Valley—Alignment A

Location Optio
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Figure 2.5-9

San Francisco Bay Crossings (Transbay)—

Alignment Alternatives and Station 

Location Options Carried Forward for 

Further Consideration
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Figure 2.5-10

San Francisco Bay Crossings 

(Dumbarton)—Alignment Alternatives and 

Station Location Options Carried Forward 

for Further Consideration

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 2 Alternatives 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 2-43

Table 2.5-4 

Bay Area to Merced: High-Speed Train Alignment Alternatives and 

Station Location Options Considered and Eliminated 

Alignment or Station 

Reason for Elimination 

Construction Incompatibility Right-of-Way Connectivity/ Accessibility 

Revenue/ Ridership 

Alignment Eliminated* 

Environment 

Environmental Concerns 

San Francisco to San Jose 

US-101 Alignment (exclusive 

guideway) 

P S P P Visual, land use (right-of-way 

acquisition) impacts 

Caltrain Corridor (exclusive guideway) P P P P Visual, land use (right-of-way 

acquisition), cultural resources 

impacts 

I-280 Alignment P P P Visual, land use (right-of-way 

acquisition) impacts 

Station Locations 

 Millbrae–SFO (US-101) P 

 Redwood City (US-101) P 

 Santa Clara (Caltrain) P Station area would be served by 

Diridon Station only 3 miles away 

Oakland to San Jose 

Mulford Line P P P P Visual, land use, wetlands, parklands 

impacts 

I-880 (Note: Only Oakland to Fremont 

portion to be eliminated) 

P P 

Former WPRR Rail Line to Mulford 

Line (WPRR/Niles/Mulford alignment) 

P P Wetlands, parklands impacts 

Hayward Line via tunnel to Mulford 

Line (Hayward/Tunnel/Mulford 

alignment) 

P S P P Wetlands, parklands, land use 

impacts; seismic constraints 

Former WPRR Rail Line via tunnel to 

Mulford Line (WPRR/Tunnel/Mulford) 

P S P P Wetlands, parklands, land use 

impacts; seismic constraints 

Former WPRR Rail Line to Hayward 

Line to I-880 (WPRR/Hayward/I-880) 

P 

Former WPRR ( Warm Springs to San 

Jose) 

P P 

Tunnel under Fremont Central Park P S Seismic constraints, parklands 

Station Locations

 Lake Merritt P P 

 Jack London Square P P 

 I-880 Hegenberger P 

 Coliseum BART (WPRR) P 

 Mowry Avenue P P 

San Jose to Central Valley 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 2 Alternatives 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 2-44

Alignment or Station 

Reason for Elimination 

Construction Incompatibility Right-of-Way Connectivity/ Accessibility 

Revenue/ Ridership 

Alignment Eliminated* 

Environment 

Environmental Concerns 

Merced Southern alignment (Central 

Valley Portion of San Jose-Merced 

section for Diablo Range Direct 

alignments) 

 P San Luis National Wildlife Refuge 

impacts 

Direct Tunnel Alignment (Northern or 

Southern Connection to Merced 

P S Seismic constraints 

Diablo Range Direct Alignments 

(Northern Alignment and alignments 

through Henry Coe State Park) 

P P Parklands, habitat fragmentation, 

high value aquatic resources, visual, 

noise impacts 

Caltrain/Morgan Hill/Foothill/Pacheco 

Pass Alignment 

P P P P Visual, land use impacts 

Caltrain/Morgan Hill/East US101/Pacheco Pass Alignment  P P 

Caltrain/Morgan Hill/Pacheco Pass 

Alignment 

P P 

Station Locations

 Morgan Hill (Foothills) P P 

 Morgan Hill (east of US-101) P P 

 Los Banos P P Water resources, threatened and 

endangered species, growth related 

impacts 

East Bay to Central Valley 

SR-84/South of Livermore S S P Natural resources, habitat and 

endangered species, agricultural 

lands, water resources impacts 

SR-84/I-580/UPRR S S P Natural resources, habitat and 

endangered species, agricultural 

lands, water resources impacts 

I-580: Bay Fair to Pleasanton P S Construction, logistical constraints, 

right-of-way 

Station Locations 

Pleasanton (I-680/SR-84) S P 

Livermore (Greenville Rd/SR84/UPRR)  S P 

Livermore (Isabel/SR-84) S P 

Central Valley Alignments 

West of SR-99 P P Farmlands, water resources, 

floodplains, severance impacts 

East of SR-99 P P Farmlands, water resources, 

floodplains, severance impacts 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Figure 2.5-11

Central Valley Alignment—Alignment 

Alternatives and Station Location Options 

Carried Forward for Further Consideration
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Alignment Alternatives and Station Location 

Eliminated fro
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 2 Alternatives 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 2-45

Alignment or Station 

Reason for Elimination 

Construction Incompatibility Right-of-Way Connectivity/ Accessibility 

Revenue/ Ridership 

Alignment Eliminated* 

Environment 

Environmental Concerns 

Definitions:

Reason: Primary (P) and secondary (S) reasons for elimination. 

Construction: Engineering and construction complexity and initial and/or recurring costs would render the project impracticable 

and logistical constraints. 

Environment: High potential for considerable impacts to natural resources, including water resources, streams, floodplains, 

wetlands, and habitat of threatened or endangered species, would fail to meet project objectives. 

Incompatibility: Incompatibility with current or planned local land use as defined in local plans would fail to meet project 

objectives. 

Right-of-Way: Lack of available rights-of-way or extensive right-of-way needs would result in high acquisition costs and/or 

delays that would render the project impracticable. 

Connectivity/Accessibility: Limited connectivity with other transportation modes (aviation, highway, and/or transit systems) 

would impair the service quality, could reduce ridership of the HST system, and would fail to meet the project purpose. 

Ridership/Revenue: The alignment/station would result in longer trip times and/or have suboptimal operating characteristics 

and would have low ridership and revenue and would fail to meet the project purpose. 

Alignment Eliminated: Station or connection eliminated because the connecting alignment was eliminated. 

* Alignment Eliminated column applies only to station locations. If an alignment is eliminated, a specific station location may no 

longer be necessary. 

2.5.3 Maintenance and Storage Facilities 

Representative maintenance and storage facilities that would be necessary to support the HST fleet have 

been considered in this Program EIR/EIS. A rail system simulation model was used to develop an overall 

operating and maintenance concept, based on an HST system with termini in both San Francisco and 

Oakland, that would be responsive to the forecast representative demand and that could deliver the 

levels of HST service desired. Only general track locations and infrastructure configurations were 

developed for these facilities for this Program EIR/EIS. Other possible sites would be considered when 

detailed system requirements, land use, and site information are available at the project level. The 

specific facilities considered in this Program EIR/EIS are listed below and illustrated in Figure 2.5-13. 

• West Oakland: One site for a fleet storage/service and inspection/light maintenance facility could be 

located two blocks northwest of where Peralta Street intersects Mandela Parkway and southeast of 

where the alignment is parallel to I-880. 

• Merced: One site for a fleet storage/service and inspection/light maintenance facility could be 

located near Castle AFB. 

Because of the constraints of existing urban development around some of the terminus station locations, 

it is assumed that only minimal storage and very basic service, inspection, and light maintenance 

functions would be integrated into the station infrastructure. The majority of the fleet storage and 

service, inspection, maintenance, and repair requirements are assumed to be supported at two types of 

independent facilities that were defined and generally sited. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 2 Alternatives 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 2-46

A. FLEET STORAGE/SERVICE AND INSPECTION/LIGHT MAINTENANCE 

Fleet Storage/Service and Inspection/Light Maintenance Facility

The desirable configuration for this facility would include tracks for “lay-up” (parking) for trainsets, a 

service and inspection (S&I) facility for inspection and light maintenance, and a train washer located 

on the yard approach track for exterior cleaning prior to daily train storage. In addition, adjacent to 

the S&I facility, on a separate track, would be a wheel truing facility capable of accommodating two 

cars at a time. There would also be provision for an employee administrative and comfort area. 

Main Repair and Heavy Maintenance Facility

The conceptual configuration for this heavy maintenance complex includes a wheel-truing area, an 

S&I area, a running repair facility, support shops, material inventory and distribution area, 

component change-out area, overhaul shop, heavy repair facility, and exterior maintenance shop. 

The following descriptions are examples of the types of areas, shops, and functions that have been 

considered for the conceptual configuration of the main repair and maintenance facility. 

Wheel-Truing Area 

The wheel-truing area is configured to accommodate two cars. It is used to return wheel diameter 

parity and profile due to the stresses of track wear, drift, spalling, and wheel flat spots. The wheel 

truing machine is mounted under the floor for ease of operation. Rail cars are pulled over the 

machine to expedite turnaround time. Candidate vehicles for wheel truing are typically identified 

during a programmed maintenance inspection. 

Service and Inspection Area 

The service and inspection area is configured as a two track “run-through” facility. Tracks are 

equipped with observation pits and door level platforms for ease of inspection and light repair, 

providing access to under car, interior floor, and roof levels. Located between this area and the main 

maintenance area is a “runaround” track that would allow direct access/egress to both sides of the 

shop. 

The Running Repair Area 

The running repair area is configured with raised rail mounted on post structures and observation pits 

with depressed side floors. The posted, raised rail provides access to under car components 

requiring repair or replacement. Side floor and roof height platforms are also assumed in this 

configuration. The observation pit is equipped with a lift device to facilitate the removal and 

replacement of larger, heavier component units. Platforms provided at the car body side height 

provide access to glass, door, and interior and exterior repair requirements. A platform at the roof 

level provides access to the pantograph, resistor grids, and a/c components for servicing activities as 

required. 

Support Shops 

Based on the needs of specific fleet design parameters examples of shop areas and functions include 

the following: 

• Truck Shop: equipped with a storage track and turntables for the efficient transition of trucks 

requiring service and trucks ready for installation. Direct access is provided to the Component 

Cleaning Area, (located on an exterior wall) to prepare the trucks for overhaul/heavy repair. This 

area includes truck hoists to facilitate efficient repair, disassembly, and reassembly. Additional 

turntables and connecting tracks would be provided in this area to provide for the required 

maneuverability of truck assemblies. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Figure 2.5-13

Support Facilities Considered

(North)

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 2 Alternatives 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 2-47

• Component Cleaning Area: This enclosed work area, located on an exterior wall, would be used 

to pre-clean large components such as rail vehicle trucks, air compressors, and air conditioning 

units (condensers and evaporators) prior to disassembly and repair or shipment. 

• Brake Shop: This area would be used to clean, disassemble, repair, reassemble, and test brake 

units and all brake actuators. 

• Air Room: This facility would be used to clean, inspect, troubleshoot, repair, rebuild, paint, and 

test all types of brake valves and brake system components. The work area would be divided 

into four separate sections: the valve cleaning room, the repair area, the valve painting area, and 

the valve test area. The repair and test operations are performed in enclosed, temperaturecontrolled rooms. Repair operations are performed in individual workstations. 

• Clean Room/Electronics Shop: This enclosed, temperature controlled room would be equipped to 

clean, troubleshoot, repair, and test trainset electronic components such as panels, relays, 

inverters, battery chargers, circuit cards, and selected control units. Repair activities are 

generally performed at individual workstations using specialized electronic test equipment. 

• HVAC Unit Repair Shop: This area would be used to repair the components associated with air 

conditioning units. 

• Pantograph Repair Area: This area would be located on a suspended platform at the roof level of 

a rail car for the removal and installation of electric propulsion energy collection components. 

• Battery Room: This area supports the disassembly, cleaning, testing, and reassembly of multi-cell 

battery units. 

• Wheel Shop: This area supports the fabrication and repair of wheel and axle sets. Machine 

technology resident in this shop includes a mounting press, demount press, wheel bore, and axle 

lathes. 

Material Inventory and Distribution Area

This area serves as the distribution point in the Main Maintenance and Repair Facility for the material 

required to maintain, repair, clean, service, and provide for the state of good repair of the high-speed 

rail fleet. The area includes a loading dock for highway vehicles, space for the storage of transitional 

components (wheel sets, air compressors, etc.), and equipment (cranes, forklifts, pallet shelving etc.) 

associated with the efficient storage and distribution of rail car components and equipment. 

Component Change-Out Area

This area is configured as a four track “run-through” facility. The hoist section of this area has the 

capacity to lift eight coupled rail cars on two separate tracks. Located between these tracks are two 

tracks configured for the removal and installation of rail car trucks. Car body posts hold the rail 

vehicle in place while the trucks are removed and positioned on one of the four available truck 

turntables for efficient transition into the Truck Shop. 

Overhaul Area

This area is utilized in the life cycle maintenance program. Rail cars undergo rebuild and major 

component replacement on either a time or mileage based cycle. Systems and subsystems are 

removed, rebuilt, and replaced. 

Heavy Repairs 

This area accommodates repairs to a rail car that requires it to be out of service for an extended 

length of time. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 2 Alternatives 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 2-48

Exterior Maintenance Shop 

This area provides for the cosmetic and minor body damage repair, touch-up, and periodic repainting of vehicle exteriors. 

One fleet storage/service and inspection/light maintenance facility would be needed for each major 

branch of the statewide HST system (i.e., Bay Area, Sacramento, and southern California). These 

facilities would need to be sited as near as possible to the terminal stations. Main repair and heavy 

maintenance facilities are generally located near the main trunk line of the system (Los Angeles to 

Merced), where the majority of trains would pass on a daily basis. Only one main repair and heavy 

maintenance facility would be necessary. 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.0-1

3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES, AND MITIGATION STRATEGIES 

3.0 Introduction 

This chapter addresses potential impacts on environmental resources, treating each resource in a 

separate subsection. CEQA encourages state agencies to prepare joint CEQA-NEPA documents and also 

to rely on EISs prepared for compliance with NEPA to satisfy CEQA requirements where possible and 

appropriate. The Authority and the FRA have used their best judgment in preparing this combined 

Program EIR/EIS to satisfy both CEQA and NEPA requirements, and, as a result, it contains more 

information than is mandated by either the federal or state statutory and regulatory requirements. 

Including this information is appropriate because of the complex and unusual nature of, and the 

technical issues involved in, the project, the proposed HST system. In addition, Chapter 9, “Unavoidable 

Adverse Environmental Impacts,” includes summary information on certain CEQA requirements 

discussed in this chapter. 

Each environmental resource section of this chapter includes potential mitigation strategies that would 

be further refined during project-level design and analysis for sections of the HST system. Specific 

design features are outlined that will be applied during the implementation of the HST system to avoid, 

minimize, or mitigate potential impacts. 

The Authority has focused on avoiding and minimizing potential impacts through rigorous planning and 

thoughtful design. The Authority has minimized overall impact potential by defining alignments to stay 

within existing public and railroad rights-of-way to the extent feasible, while still accommodating the 

appropriate features and design standards for the alternatives. The program level of environmental 

analysis provides a means to avoid and minimize adverse environmental impacts in the review and 

refinement of HST Alignment Alternatives and station location options, and identifies mitigation 

strategies for further consideration in project-level documents. The potential impacts associated with 

the implementation of the proposed HST system, many of which will be highly site specific, would be 

further addressed during subsequent project-level environmental review. During project-level review 

more precise information will be available regarding the location and design of proposed facilities. Using 

the level of design and engineering detail to be provided during project-level analyses, the Authority will 

implement approved mitigation strategies; further investigate ways to avoid, minimize, and mitigate 

potential impacts; and identify site-specific mitigation for sections of the HST system. 

3.0.1 Purpose and Content of This Chapter 

The purpose of this chapter is to describe existing environmental conditions in the areas that would be 

affected by the proposed HST Alignment Alternatives and the No Project Alternative, evaluate potential 

environmental impacts associated with constructing and operating the HST Alignment Alternatives, and 

present potential program-level mitigation strategies to avoid or reduce those impacts. The analysis 

presented in this chapter addresses the general effects of a program of actions that would make up the 

proposed HST system in the Bay Area to Central Valley study region. This chapter describes the general 

differences in potential environmental consequences between the No Project Alternative and the HST 

Alignment Alternatives identified in Chapter 2. The analysis also identifies key differences among the 

potential impacts associated with the various HST Alignment Alternatives and station location options, to 

support the selection of preferred alignments and station location options in the Bay Area to Central 

Valley study region. 

Chapter 7, “High-Speed Train Network and Alignment Alternatives Comparisons,” summarizes and 

compares the physical and operational characteristics and potential environmental consequences 

associated with the various HST Alignment Alternatives and describes the differences among the HST 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3 Affected Environment, Environmental 

Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.0-2

Network Alternatives. A preferred HST Network Alternative and preferred alignment was identified 

following public and agency comment on the draft Program EIR/EIS and is defined in Chapter 8. 

Many sources were used in the preparation of this document. References to these sources are cited in 

text and in Chapter 14. 

3.0.2 Organization of This Chapter 

This chapter is organized into sections by resource topic. The resource topics are grouped as follows. 

• Transportation and related topics-air quality, noise and vibration, energy, and electromagnetic 

interference. 

• Human environment-land use and community impacts, parklands, farmlands and agriculture, 

aesthetics and visual resources, socioeconomics, utilities and public services, and hazardous 

materials/wastes. 

• Cultural resources (archaeological resources, historic properties) and paleontological resources. 

• Natural environment-geology and seismic hazards, hydrology and water resources, and biological 

resources, including wetlands. 

• Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources (certain types of publicly owned parklands, recreation areas, 

wildlife/waterfowl refuges, and historic sites). 

Each resource topic section contains the following information. 

• Regulatory requirements and methods of evaluation. 

• Affected environment. 

• Environmental consequences. 

• Role of design practices in avoiding and minimizing effects. Mitigation strategies and CEQA 

significance conclusions. 

• Subsequent analysis. 

The methods of evaluation and regulatory requirements discussions for each resource topic describe the 

assumptions, approach for evaluation, and criteria used to identify potential impacts as significant 

(potentially requiring mitigation) and identify the relevant statutes and CEQA, NEPA, or regulatory 

agency guidelines relevant to future project approvals or decisions for that resource topic. The methods 

of impact evaluation were developed with input from state and federal resource agencies. The agencies 

acknowledge that this is a planning-level EIR/EIS aimed at making broad decisions to help determine 

the corridors and alignments to carry forward for project-level environmental evaluation. Key differences 

in potential impacts of each of the alignment alternatives are described. 

As described in Chapter 2, “Alternatives,” ridership for this system was estimated to vary between 90 

million and 117 million passengers (32 million riders would be long-distance commuters) for 2030. For 

this Program EIR/EIS, the higher ridership forecast of 117 million intercity trips, including 32 million 

long-distance commute trips, provides a reasonable representation of total capacity and serves as a 

representative worst-case scenario for analyzing the potential environmental impacts from the physical 

and operational aspects of the alternatives in 2030. This higher forecast is generally used as a basis for 

defining the alternatives and is referred to hereafter as the representative demand. In some specific 

analyses (e.g., energy, air quality, transportation), high-end forecasts would result in potential benefits. 

In those cases, additional analysis is included to address the impacts associated with lower ridership 

forecasts. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3 Affected Environment, Environmental 

Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.0-3

The affected environment discussions summarize the information that provides the basis for analysis of 

potential environmental impacts on each environmental resource. Information in the affected 

environment discussions is presented for each of the six identified corridors in the study region. The six 

corridors are San Francisco to San J:Jse, Oakland to San J:Jse, San Jose to Central Valley, East Bay to 

Central Valley, San Francisco Bay Crossings, and Central Valley. Because the proposed HST system 

would not be operational until the year 2020, the affected environment discussions describe both the 

existing conditions as of 2006 and, where appropriate and not overly speculative, the anticipated 2030 

conditions that would pertain when the project becomes operational. For disciplines where projections 

of future changes in existing conditions would be overly speculative, the existing 2006 conditions were 

used as a proxy for the 2030 conditions. For some disciplines-such as transportation, energy, air quality, 

and land use-future conditions are routinely projected in adopted regional or local planning documents 

or are forecast by public agencies. In these cases, the existing conditions and the projected 2030 

conditions were used as the basis for impact analysis. The technical studies addressing each resource 

topic provided key information for the preparation of the affected environment discussions. 

The environmental consequences discussions describe the potential environmental impacts (both 

adverse and beneficial) of the HST Alignment Alternatives in comparison to the No Project Alternative. 

Each discussion begins by comparing existing conditions with 2030 No Project conditions to describe the 

consequences of the No Project Alternative and how environmental conditions are expected to change 

during the timeframe required to bring the proposed HST system online. Po described above, existing 

(2006) conditions were used as a proxy for 2030 No Project conditions where 2030 baseline information 

was unavailable, could not be projected, or would be overly speculative. Using 2030 No Project 

conditions as a basis for comparison, the analysis of impacts then addresses direct and indirect impacts 

for the proposed HST Alignment Alternatives, as well as potential cumulative impacts. Measures that 

already have been included as part of the proposed HST Alignment Alternatives to reduce or avoid 

potential environmental impacts were incorporated into this analysis; examples include locating the 

alignment within an existing transportation corridor and tunneling to avoid surface disruption in 

sensitive areas, such as parklands and wildlife habitat areas. The impact analyses compare logical 

segments of the alignment alternatives and station location options with one another. 

For many of the environmental resources, broad study areas were defined to describe a wide context of 

the existing resources in proximity to proposed improvements. For example, the study area for 

floodplains extends 100 ft (30.5 meters [m]) on either side of the centerline of the alignment 

considered. However, the right-of-way necessary for the improvements considered is much smaller 

(e.g., only 25 ft [7.6 m] on either side of centerline for HST). Potential HST alignment floodplain impacts 

are described for the 50 ft (25 m) in total width typically needed for the track structures. 

Potential impacts on public services, such as traffic and circulation and utilities, are also addressed in 

Chapter 3. However, specific issues will be addressed only during subsequent project-level 

environmental review, when more precise information will be available regarding location and design of 

the facilities proposed (e.g., elevated, at-grade, access locations, station design features, and fencing 

type and location). The detail of engineering associated with the project-level environmental analysis 

will allow the Authority to identify system requirements and further investigate ways to avoid, minimize, 

and mitigate potential effects on the provision of such services. 

A. RELATIONSHIP OF THIS CHAPTER TO OTHER CHAPTERS 

• The impacts of the HST system were analyzed using a multistep process and are presented 

accordingly in several chapters. 

• This chapter presents the potential impacts of HST Alignment Alternatives, which are the 

building blocks for creating representative network alternatives. 

• Chapter 7, “High-Speed Train Network and Alignment Alternatives Comparisons,” compares the 

total estimated impacts for the 21 HST Network Alternatives, which represent different ways to 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3 Affected Environment, Environmental 

Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.0-4

implement the HST system in the study region using combinations of HST Alignment 

Alternatives and station location options. 

• Chapter 5 presents the potential growth effects of the HST system, and Chapter 9 presents the 

potential unavoidable adverse impacts. 

For more information on the relationship between HST Alignment Alternatives and Network 

Alternatives and for definitions of specific terms, such as study region and station location option, 

see Chapter 2, “Alternatives.” 

B. DESIGN FEATURES/PRACTICES AND MITIGATION STRATEGIES 

As currently planned, the proposed HST system would avoid and minimize potential negative 

environmental consequences. Conceptual designs of the HST system meet the project objectives 

(Chapter 1, “Purpose and Need and Objectives”) and design criteria (California High Speed Rail 

Authority 2004), which set specific goals to avoid and minimize negative environmental 

consequences. In addition, design and construction practices have been identified that would be 

employed as the project is developed further in project-level environmental review, final design, and 

construction stages. Although many of these practices are explicitly included in the project 

description and included in the capital cost estimates for the project, their application to avoidance 

and minimization of p:ltential impacts may not be readily apparent. Thus, for each environmental 

resource topic (section of Chapter 3), applicable design and construction practices and resulting 

features related to the potential impacts identified in that section are discussed. 

The mitigation strategy discussions describe potential approaches that can be identified at a 

program level for use to avoid, minimize, or reduce potentially significant environmental impacts. 

Finally, each resource topic section includes a subsequent analysis discussion summarizing 

directions for more detailed study during project-level environmental review and documentation. 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.1-1

3.1 Traffic, Transit, Circulation, and Parking 

This section describes the transportation study area in the study region and existing traffic and circulation 

conditions. It also identifies the potential traffic, transit, circulation, and parking impacts of the HST 

system in each identified corridor and at each HST station location option and compares the impacts of 

the HST system with the No Project Alternative at these locations. 

3.1.1 Regulatory Requirements and Methods of Evaluation 

A. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 

NEPA and CEQA require that potential impacts of a proposed HST system on the traffic, transit, and 

circulation of the study region be examined as part of the program EIR/EIS process. 

B. METHOD OF EVALUATION OF IMPACTS 

The traffic, transit, circulation, and parking analyses focus on a broad comparison of potential 

impacts on traffic, transit, circulation, and parking along stations for the HST Alignment Alternatives 

and station location options. Potential impacts are compared to the No Project Alternative. 

Highways, roadways, passenger transportation services (e.g., bus, rail, and transit facilities), goods 

movement, and parking issues are evaluated in this analysis. Transportation facilities, highways, and 

roadways included in the analysis serve as the primary means of existing (or planned future) access 

to the rail station location options. These facilities are within 1 mile (mi) (1.6 kilometers [km]) of the 

suburban rail stations location options or 0.25 mi (0.40 km) of downtown station location options. 

Initial analysis identified primary routes to be considered for highways (as designated in the No 

Project Alternative) and for all modes of access to the HST station location options. Once primary 

routes were identified, screenlines or cordons combining segments of the primary access routes were 

established. These segments reasonably represent locations for evaluating the aggregate baseline 

traffic and public passenger transportation conditions (using data for 2005 and 2030) in the 

generalized peak hour. The use of screenlines or cordons rather than detailed traffic analysis is 

appropriate for the broad scale and program level of this analysis of roadway conditions in the vicinity 

of proposed HST station location options throughout the study region. Screenlines in the vicinity of 

proposed HST station location options were selected to represent typical peak-hour conditions. 

To capture the effects of diversions to HST on intercity highway, intercity highway links were selected 

in each transportation corridor likely to be affected by HST. The data used in the evaluation of traffic 

volumes and capacities on the intercity highway links are typical values, based on averages over time 

and represented in traffic forecasting tools used by the regional transportation planning agencies. As 

such, the conditions indicated in the evaluation may not always reflect the experiences of travelers at 

any particular place at any specific time. For example, localized capacity restrictions (e.g., 

bottlenecks at a given interchange) are not well represented in those regional traffic models. In 

addition, incidents on the road, such as accidents and vehicle breakdowns (nonrecurring congestion), 

are not represented in regional traffic models. This unpredictable type of incident is responsible for 

the majority of congestion in urban highway networks. This section also reports intercity links by 

relatively long sections of highway that average out variations that occur at specific locations. The 

result of these limitations of the methods and data used in this analysis is that many times the levels 

of service shown in the evaluation may be more optimistic than what would actually be experienced 

on the roadway under the forecasted conditions. Thus, it is important to consider the differences 

between the alignment alternatives and station locations options being compared rather than focus 

on the absolute value of the indicators (i.e., volume-to-capacity ratio [V/C] or level of service [LOS]) 

(Table 3.1-1). 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.1 Traffic, Transit, Circulation, and Parking 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.1-2

V/C is a standard level of service measure for roadways, defined as the number of vehicles that travel 

on a transportation facility divided by the full vehicular capacity of that facility (the number of 

vehicles the facility was designed to convey). 

The impact analysis that follows is discussed under three different scenarios. The three scenarios, or 

conditions, are: 

1. Existing (year 2005) or baseline conditions. 

2. Future (year 2030) without the proposed HST project, or No Project conditions. 

3. Future (year 2030) with the proposed HST project with two sets of alignment scenarios (Pacheco 

Pass compared to Altamont Pass alternatives). 

Steps or methods used to arrive at the required data are outlined below. 

• Intercity Links— Existing conditions were established for intercity highway links based on 

available counts of existing weekday peak-hour traffic volumes (California Department of 

Transportation 2005). Future No Project and project conditions were determined from forecasts 

of 2030 intercity traffic with and without the HST alternatives. This process involved a 

comparison of existing and forecasted future volumes to the capacity of these links to determine 

the V/C at the link level. Both base and high HST ridership forecasts were developed. Because 

the comparisons between No Project and project conditions were very similar for the two 

forecasts, this study presents results from the only the base forecast for the intercity highway 

links. 

• Station Cordons— After V/C across each cordon for roadways (not intersections) was established 

for the weekday peak hour, the LOS for these roadways was determined using 2000 HCM

standards for capacity (Transportation Research Board 2000). Screenlines/cordons around 

stations are shown in Appendix 3.1-A. 

• Transit Access—Existing and future No Project conditions were established through an inventory 

of available public transportation services at and adjacent to the station location options. 

• Goods Movement—Existing and future No Project conditions for goods movement (truck freight) 

at weekday peak hour for locations in the area were identified as critical by regional goods 

movement studies. 

• Parking Near Stations—Descriptions of parking conditions are based on 2002 parking supply and 

demand, local plans for major parking expansion, and adequacy of local parking codes for 

meeting the projected growth in demand in 2030 (without the HST). 

Additional analysis was conducted for the No Project and project conditions at the HST station 

screenlines. Trip generation in the vicinity of HST station location options was calculated based on 

the forecast 2030 demand for high-speed rail. Results from the high ridership forecast were used in 

the analysis to give the worst-case traffic impacts around stations. The generated trips were added 

to the appropriate baseline volumes and distributed to the identified roadway screenlines. Next, the 

generated trips were distributed on selected segments/links on station routes and modes of access to 

station location options and similar facilities. Specific methods are detailed below. 

• For each screenline or cordon, new ratios of demand-to-capacity were calculated. Demand is the 

baseline volume plus additional trips generated by the HST system. 

• Future No Project link capacity conditions were established based on the available plans from 

local and regional agencies, and fiscally constrained elements of the relevant RTP. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.1 Traffic, Transit, Circulation, and Parking 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.1-3

• Link-level analysis of impacts was performed on roadways for generalized weekday peak-hour 

conditions. Capacity levels were based on the 2000 HCM methods. Future roadway V/C on 

selected segments compared future volumes with/without the proposed project with future 

capacity determined. Future V/C with/without the HST Alignment Alternatives was analyzed. 

This assessment was performed at a cordon level, aggregating the V/C on all major facilities 

accessing the stations. 

• Cordon-level analysis was also performed for public transportation serving the stations, based on 

generalized weekday peak-hour service headway and capacity conditions. 

• Impacts were determined by comparing qualitative future No Project transit service levels (as 

specified in relevant RTPs) with existing transit service levels and by comparing qualitative future 

HST Alternative transit load factors with future No Project transit load factors. 

• Impacts on parking were calculated by comparing parking demand for both base and high 

forecasts to parking capacity. In general, the project would provide enough parking to meet 

demand. The exception is in San Francisco, where commercial parking operators are expected to 

provide parking at market rates. 

• Goods movement impacts were determined through an assessment of the net impact of project 

alternatives on the segments. 

Table 3.1-2 identifies impacts on intercity highways/roadways for selected intercity links in the 

affected transportation corridors. Impacts in the vicinity of HST station location options on highways, 

public transportation services, and parking facilities are described in Table 3.1-3 according to the 

potential extent of change to traffic, transit, circulation, and parking. Impacts are described by the 

V/C ratios or the transit load factors. For traffic, impacts are further described in terms of LOS1

 (LOS 

A to LOS F) (Table 3.1-1). 

The final analytic step was to consider the mitigation strategies identified in the statewide program 

EIR/EIS and related findings and decision documents to avoid potential impacts related to traffic, 

circulation, or parking. Further refinement of these mitigation strategies will involve subsequent 

analysis of traffic, circulation, or parking in project-level environmental analyses prepared for sections 

of the HST program. 

C. CEQA SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA 

Under CEQA, a proposed project should be analyzed for the potential effects listed below (California 

Department of Transportation 2003). 

• An increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the 

street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in the number of vehicle trips, the V/C, or 

congestion at intersections). 

• Either individually or cumulatively exceeding an LOS standard established by the county 

congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. 

• A substantial increase in hazards attributable to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or 

dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). 

• Inadequate parking capacity. 

• Inadequate emergency access. 

 

1 Level of service is a qualitative measure used to describe the condition of traffic flow, ranging from excellent conditions at level of 

service (LOS) A to overloaded conditions at LOS F. LOS D is typically recognized as an acceptable service level in urban areas. The 

definition for each level of service for signalized intersections is based on the V/C ratio. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.1 Traffic, Transit, Circulation, and Parking 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.1-4

• Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus 

turnouts, bicycle racks). 

• Rail, waterborne, or air traffic impacts. 

V/C ratios and LOS are defined quantitatively in Table 3.1-1. 

Given the scale of the proposed high-speed rail system and the broad area considered in this 

document, virtually all of the criteria mentioned above potentially would be affected by the No Project 

Alternative and the HST Alternative Alignments at some location or locations in the system, and these 

criteria will be considered and applied in future project-level environmental reviews. For this analysis, 

this program-level document focuses on the criteria below. 

• Traffic and LOS analysis of the following elements 

− Intercity highway links, 

− Screenlines of primary highways/roadways accessing HST station location options. 

Under CEQA, the proposed project would have a significant impact related to transportation and 

traffic if the project would result in: 

• Substantial increase in traffic on roadways that exceeds the V/C. 

• Inadequate parking capacity. 

• Substantial interference with goods movement. 

• Substantial interference with or lack of connectivity with other transit systems. 

Table 3.1-1 

Level of Service and Volume-to-Capacity Ratio Definition 

Level of 

Service 

Volume-toCapacity Ratio Definition 

A 0.000−0.600 EXCELLENT. No vehicle waits longer than one red light and no approach phase 

is fully used. 

B 0.601−0.700 VERY GOOD. An occasional approach phase is fully used; many drivers begin to 

feel somewhat restricted within groups of vehicles. 

C 0.701−0.800 GOOD. Occasionally drivers may have to wait through more than one red light; 

backups may develop behind turning vehicles. 

D 0.801−0.900 FAIR. Delays may be substantial during portions of rush hours, but enough 

lower volume periods occur to permit clearing of developing lines, preventing 

excessive backups. 

E 0.901−1.000 POOR. Represents the maximum vehicles that intersection approaches can 

accommodate; may be long lines of waiting vehicles through several signal 

cycles. 

F >1.000 FAILURE. Backups from nearby locations or on cross streets may restrict or 

prevent movement of vehicles out of the intersection approaches. Tremendous 

delays with continuously increasing queue lengths. 

Source: Transportation Research Board 1980. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.1 Traffic, Transit, Circulation, and Parking 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.1-5

3.1.2 Affected Environment 

There are six corridors and 26 station location options, including alternate locations, in the study region. 

This section discusses the parking and transit services available at the station location options and briefly 

discusses the major roadways serving the proposed locations. The results of LOS analysis of the local 

streets surrounding the station are also included. The current traffic, transit, and parking conditions or 

utilizations are rated by volume to capacity ratio. 

The first subsection describes the intercity highway corridors and goods movement in the region. The 

second subsection describes the transit providers in the study region, and the final subsection discusses 

the existing traffic, transit, circulation, and parking conditions at station location options by corridor in the 

study region. 

A. INTERCITY HIGHWAY CORRIDORS AND GOODS MOVEMENT 

The primary north-south highways in the Bay Area are US 101 and I-280 on the Peninsula and I-880 

and I-680 in the East Bay. I-380 and State Route (SR) 87 provide east-west access on the San 

Francisco Peninsula. I-80 links San Francisco and Oakland via the Bay Bridge and continues to 

Sacramento. I-580, I-205, and SR 152 provide access to I-5 in the Central Valley, while I-5 and SR 

99 provide north-south access in the Central Valley. Eighteen intercity highway links listed below 

were selected for analysis of HST impacts on intercity highways. The location of these links is 

illustrated by Figures 3.1-1 and 3.1-2. 

1. US 101: San Francisco—SF Airport 

2. US 101: SF Airport —Redwood City 

3. US 101: Redwood City—I-880 

4. US 101: I-880—San José 

5. US 101: San José—Gilroy 

6. US 101: Gilroy—SR 152 

7. SR 152: US 101—I-5 

8. SR 152: I-5—SR 99 

9. I-80: SF—I-880 

10. I-80: I-880—I-5 

11. I-880: I-80—I-580 

12. I-880: I-580—Fremont/Newark 

13. I-880: Fremont/Newark—US 101 

14. I-580: I-880 via SR 238—Livermore 

15. I-580: Livermore—I-5 

16. I-680: I-580—US 101 

17. I-5: I-580—SR 140 

18. SR 99: Ripon—Merced 

After a decade and half of rapid job growth in the Bay Area, analysis of 2005 peak-hour traffic 

volumes indicates that some freeway segments in the study corridors of I-80, US 101, I-880, I-580, 

and SR 152 are very congested, operating at LOS E or F in the generalized peak hour in the peak 

direction. Of the 18 highway links analyzed, four links operate at V/C approaching 1.0 and two links 

operate at V/C greater than 1.0, showing congested conditions (Table 3.1-2). Following a description 

of the transit providers in the study region, the existing conditions of the intercity highway links are 

explained in more detail under their respective study corridors in Subsection C, Study Corridors and 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.1 Traffic, Transit, Circulation, and Parking 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.1-6

Potential High Speed Train Stations. Future conditions are discussed in Section 3.1.3, Environmental 

Consequences. 

Vehicles for goods movements use two sets of roadways: the intercity freeway links and local roads 

to access their destinations. The only location where the HST Alignment Alternatives would affect 

the local roads would be in the vicinity of major goods movement destinations adjacent to the Port of 

Oakland. Goods movement is subjected to the same levels of congestion on the intercity highway 

network as other traffic. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Figure 3.1-1

Bay Area Intercity Highway Links
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Figure 3.1-2

South Bay and Central Valley Intercity Highway Links 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.1 Traffic, Trans

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 3.1-2 

Impacts to 2030 Peak-Hour Traffic on Intercity Freeways from Diversion to HST 

LOCATION 

2005 2030 NO-BUILD 

2030 ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES 

PACHECO PASS ALTERNATIVES ALTAMONT P

 V/C, 

LOS1

 V/C, 

LOS1

% 

CHANGE 

FROM 

EXISTING

PEAKPERIOD 

TRIPS 

DIVERTED2

% 

CHANGE 

FROM 

NOBUILD V/C, LOS1

% 

CHANGE 

FROM 

NOBUILD 

PEAKPERIOD 

TRIPS 

DIVERTED2

% 

CHAN

FRO

NO

BUI

US 101: San Francisco—SF Airport 0.81 0.95 17.2% (596) -0.6% 0.92 -2.7% (599) -0.6

D E E 

US 101: SF Airport —Redwood City 0.97 1.03 6.3% (442) -0.4% 1.03 -0.4% (388) -0.3

E F F 

US 101: Redwood City—I-880 0.75 1.47 96.5% 542 0.5% 1.48 0.5% 601 0.6

C F F 

US 101: I-880—San José 0.73 0.79 8.3% (5,392) -4.6% 0.75 -4.6% (4,989) -4.2

C C C 

US 101: San José—Gilroy3 0.87 0.64 -26.7% (4,948) -4.0% 0.61 -4.0% (2,015) -1.6

D B B 

US 101: Gilroy—SR 152 0.72 1.17 64.0% (2,986) -3.7% 1.13 -3.7% (1,524) -1.9

C F F 

SR 152: US 101—I-5 3 0.78 0.51 -34.9% (612) -4.2% 0.49 -4.2% 81 0.6

C A A 

SR 152: I-5—SR 99 3 0.59 0.46 -22.5% (943) -5.5% 0.43 -5.5% (844) -4.9

A A A 

I-80: SF—I-880 0.79 1.18 50.6% (736) -0.6% 1.18 -0.6% (1,346) -1.1

C F F 

I-80: I-880—I-5 0.81 0.98 19.9% (2,545) -3.7% 0.92 -5.6% (3,007) -4.4

D E E 

I-880: I-80—I-580 0.82 1.16 41.1% (1,370) -2.6% 1.13 -2.6% (1,458) -2.7

D F F 

I-880: I-580—Fremont/Newark 0.95 1.12 18.0% (1,852) -1.8% 1.10 -1.8% (2,068) -2.0

E F F 

I-880: Fremont/Newark—US 101 0.96 1.58 65.5% (325) -0.3% 1.58 -0.3% (1,468) -1.2

E F F 

I-580: I-880 via SR 238—Livermore 0.74 1.28 73.8% (3,938) -2.5% 1.25 -2.5% (5,263) -3.4

C F F 

I-580: Livermore—I-5 0.51 1.22 137.8% (6,325) -5.4% 1.15 -5.4% (6,647) -5.7

A F F 

I-680: I-580—US 101 1.06 1.34 25.8% 630 0.5% 1.34 0.5% 869 0.7

F F F 

I-5: I-580—SR 140 3 0.99 0.81 -17.6% (7,897) -20.2% 0.65 -20.2% (7,342) -18.

E D B 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.1 Traffic, Trans

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

LOCATION 

2005 2030 NO-BUILD 

2030 ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES 

PACHECO PASS ALTERNATIVES ALTAMONT P

 V/C, 

LOS1

 V/C, 

LOS1

% 

CHANGE 

FROM 

EXISTING

PEAKPERIOD 

TRIPS 

DIVERTED2

% 

CHANGE 

FROM 

NOBUILD V/C, LOS1

% 

CHANGE 

FROM 

NOBUILD 

PEAKPERIOD 

TRIPS 

DIVERTED2

% 

CHAN

FRO

NO

BUI

SR 99: Ripon—Merced 1.04 1.36 30.9% (1,847) -2.8% 1.32 -2.8% (1,943) -3.0

F F F 

1 Peak-hour V/C changes based on diversion to HST. LOS values are defined from V/C values as follows: up to 0.60=A, above 0.60 to 0.70=B, above 0.70 to 0.80=C, above 

1.00=E, above 1.00=F

2 The peak period is the sum of the AM and PM 3-hour peak periods. Where the percentage diversion is different than the V/C percentage change, it is because of unequal dir3 Future capacity increases result in improved LOS between 2005 and 2030. Source: Caltrans 2005 AADT, Cambridge Systematics (base forecast), Parsons, June 2007.
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.1 Traffic, Trans

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 3.1-3 

Impacts to Traffic, Transit, and Parking from HST Station Location Options 

Corridor/Station Location Options 

HIGHWAY/STATION CONDITIONS/IMPACTS 

(V/C) 

TRANSIT CONDITIONS/IMPACTS 

(V/C) 

PARKING C

[D

2005 

Conditions 

2030 

without 

HST 

Conditions

2030 HST Impacts 

2005 

Conditions

2030 

without 

HST 

Conditions 

2030 

HST 

Impacts

2005 

Conditions

w

Co

Pacheco Altamont

San Francisco to San Jose: Caltrain Transbay Transit Center 

0.80; 0.90; 1.08 1.03 >1 >1 >1 <1 

LOS D LOS D LOS F LOS F 

4th and King (Caltrain) 0.33; 0.40; 0.69 0.61 <1 <1 <1 <1 

LOS A LOS A LOS B LOS B 

Millbrae/SFO 0.63; 0.91; 0.96; 0.96; <1 <1 <1 <1 

LOS B LOS E LOS E LOS E 

Redwood City (Caltrain) 

0.61; 0.68; 0.72; 0.71; <1 <1 <1 <1 

LOS B LOS B LOS C LOS C 

Palo Alto (Caltrain) 0.85; 0.47; 0.50; 0.49; <1 <1 <1 <1 

LOS D LOS A LOS A LOS A 

Oakland to San Jose: Niles/I-880 West Oakland/7th Street2

0.15; 0.16; 0.32; 0.32; <1 <1 <1 <1 

LOS A LOS A LOS A LOS A 

12th Street/City Center2

0.40; 0.45; 0.53; 0.53; <1 <1 <1 <1 

LOS A LOS A LOS B LOS B 

Coliseum/Airport2 0.30; 0.45; 0.52; 0.52; <1 <1 <1 <1 

LOS A LOS A LOS A LOS A 

Union City (BART)3 0.50; 0.55; 0.67; 0.67; <1 <1 <1 <1 

LOS A LOS A LOS B LOS B 

Fremont (Warm Springs) 

0.48; 0.46; 0.47; <1 <1 <1 <1 

LOS A LOS A LOS A 

San Francisco Bay Crossings Union City (Shinn) 0.31; 0.46; 0.49; <1 <1 <1 <1 

LOS A LOS A LOS B 

San Jose to Central Valley: Pacheco Pass San Jose (Diridon) 0.25; 0.48; 0.59; 0.58; <1 <1 <1 <1 

LOS A LOS A LOS A LOS A 

Morgan Hill (Caltrain) 0.42; 0.59; 0.65; <1 <1 <1 <1 

LOS A LOS A LOS B 

Gilroy (Caltrain) 0.44; 0.67; 0.74; <1 <1 <1 <1 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.1 Traffic, Trans

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Corridor/Station Location Options 

HIGHWAY/STATION CONDITIONS/IMPACTS 

(V/C) 

TRANSIT CONDITIONS/IMPACTS 

(V/C) 

PARKING C

[D

2005 

Conditions 

2030 

without 

HST 

Conditions

2030 HST Impacts 

2005 

Conditions

2030 

without 

HST 

Conditions 

2030 

HST 

Impacts

2005 

Conditions

w

Co

Pacheco Altamont

LOS A LOS B LOS C 

East Bay to Central Valley: Altamont Pass Pleasanton (I680/Bernal Rd) 0.47; 0.53; 0.70; <1 <1 <1 <1 

LOS A LOS A LOS C 

Pleasanton (BART) 0.21; 0.44; 0.46; <1 <1 <1 >1 

LOS A LOS A LOS A 

Livermore (Downtown) 0.46; 0.82; 1.10; <1 <1 <1 NA 

LOS A LOS D LOS F 

Livermore (I-580) 0.86; 1.07; 1.38; <1 <1 <1 NA 

LOS D LOS F LOS F 

Livermore (Greenville Road/UPRR) 

0.21; 0.44; 0.71; NA NA <1 NA 

LOS A LOS A LOS C 

Livermore (Greenville Road/I-580) 

0.44; 0.50; 0.80; NA NA <1 NA 

LOS A LOS A LOS C 

Tracy (Downtown) 0.34; 0.64; 0.74; <1 <1 <1 <1 

LOS A LOS B LOS C 

Tracy (ACE) 0.01; 0.02; 0.26; NA NA <1 NA 

LOS A LOS A LOS A 

Central Valley Modesto (Downtown) 0.53; 0.90; 0.92; 0.92; <1 <1 <1 <1 

LOS A LOS D LOS E LOS E 

Briggsmore (Amtrak) 0.59; 0.88; 0.91; 0.91; <1 <1 <1 NA 

LOS A LOS D LOS E LOS E 

Merced (Downtown) 0.95; 1.15; 1.16; 1.16; <1 <1 <1 <1 

LOS E LOS F LOS F LOS F 

Castle AFB 0.45; 0.63; 0.65; 0.65; <1 <1 <1 NA 

LOS A LOS B LOS B LOS B 

Note: 1 Represents 'unavailable data'.2 Oakland Station conditions estimated from prior analyses because no current ridership forecasts are available. 3 Demand for Warms Springs under Altamont is used to approximate the parking demand at Union City because no forecasts are currently available. Parsons 2007 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.1 Traffic, Transit, Circulation, and Parking 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.1-11

Transit Providers in the Study Region

There are a number of transit providers in the region; the primary agencies in the study region are as 

follows: 

• Municipal Railway (Muni), providing bus and light rail transit in San Francisco and bus service to 

parts of Daly City in San Mateo County. 

• Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART), providing rapid rail transit throughout Contra Costa, 

Alameda, and northern San Mateo Counties. 

• Golden Gate Transit and Bridge District, providing ferries on the Bay and bus transit among 

Sonoma, Marin, and San Francisco Counties. 

• Alameda County (AC) Transit, providing bus transit in Alameda County with express service into 

San Francisco via the Bay Bridge and limited express service to San Mateo County (via the San 

Mateo and Dumbarton bridges) and Santa Clara County. 

• Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (SCVTA), providing bus and light rail transit in Santa 

Clara County, with limited connections to San Mateo County. 

• Merced County Transit’s “The Bus,” providing bus transit service locally and beyond, with 

connections out of the Merced Transportation Center to Turlock, Atwater, Livingston, Los Banos, 

and Dos Palos. 

• San Benito County Transit, providing shuttle bus service among Hollister, San Juan Bautista, 

Salinas, and south Santa Clara County. 

• Caltrain, providing commuter rail service from Gilroy to San Francisco. 

• San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans), providing bus transit throughout San Mateo 

County and into parts of San Francisco and Palo Alto. 

• Altamont Commuter Express (ACE), providing limited commuter rail service between Stockton 

and San Jose. 

• Monterey-Salinas Transit (MST), serving Monterey County and southern Santa Cruz County via its 

33 routes. 

• Amtrak Capitols, providing limited commuter rail service between the Sacramento area and San 

José. 

• Greyhound, providing limited intercity service throughout California and other states. 

• Other transit providers in the region, including Livermore Amador Valley Transit (WHEELS), 

Western Contra Costa County Transit (WestCAT), San Joaquin Regional Transit, Stanislaus 

Regional Transit (StaRT), Ceres Area Transit (CAT), Ceres Dial-A-Ride, Riverbank-Oakdale Transit 

Authority (ROTA), and Modesto Area Express (MAX). 

Table 3.1-4 lists the connecting transit services at the HST station location options. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.1 Traffic, Transit, Circulation, and Parking 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.1-12

Table 3.1-4 

Connecting Transit Service at HST Station Location Options 

Potential HST Stations Connecting Transit Service 

Transbay Transit Center 

Muni 5, 6, 10, 14, 14L, 14x, 38, 38L, 76, 108; AC Transit C, CB, E, F, 

FS, G, H, J, L, LA, N, NL, NX, NX1, NX2, NX3, NX4, O, OX, P, S, SA, 

SB, U, V, W, Z, 800 SamTrans DX, FX, KX, MX, NX, PX, RX, 391, 292; 

Golden Gate Transit Service 10, 20, 30, 50, 60, 70, 80, 2, 4, 8, 18, 24, 

26, 28, 32, 34, 38, 44, 48, 54, 56, 72, 74, 76, 78, 90, 93; WestCAT; 

Greyhound; Caltrain; BART 

4th & King Muni 10, 15, 30, 45, 47, 80x, 81x, 82x, N-Judah and T-Third Light 

Rail, Caltrain 

Millbrae SamTrans MX, 242, 390, 391, Caltrain, BART 

Redwood City SamTrans KX, PX, RX, 270, 271, 390, 391, Caltrain 

Palo Alto SamTrans KX, PX, RX, 280, 281, 390, 391; SCVTA 22, 35, 88,522, 

Caltrain 

San Jose SCVTA 22, 63, 64, 65, 68, 180, 305, 522, Hwy. 17, Caltrain, ACE, 

Amtrak, DASH, LRT, MST 55 (Monterey to San Jose Express) 

West Oakland AC Transit 13, 14, 19, 62,; BART 

Oakland City Center AC Transit 1, 1R, 62, 72, 72R, 72M, 88; BART 

Oakland Coliseum AC Transit 45, 46, 56, 57C, 98; BART 

Union City AC Transit 97, 99, 211, 214, 216, 232, 332, 801 ; SCVTA DB, DB1, 1, 

2, 3, 4; BART 

Shinn No existing facilities; closest transit connection available to this 

location is AC Transit route 216, which is about 0.6 miles away. 

Warm Springs 

No existing facilities; closest transit connection available to this 

location is AC Transit route 215 on Warm Springs Boulevard and route 

218 on Grimmer Boulevard (both within 0.5 mile of the station 

location option.) 

Morgan Hill SCVTA 15, 121, Caltrain, MST 55 

Gilroy SCVTA 17, 19, 68, 121, Caltrain, Greyhound, San Benito Transit, MST 

55. 

Bernal/I-680 WHEELS 8, 53, 54. 

Dublin/Pleasanton County Connection, WHEELS 3, 8, 10, 12, 20, 51, 54, 70X, 604, San 

Joaquin Transit RTD 60, 71, BART 

Livermore I-580 WHEELS 12, 12A, 12V, 15, 20 

Livermore Downtown WHEELS 10, 11, 12, 14, 18, 162, 163, Dart Livermore, Greyhound, 

Amtrak, ACE 

Greenville I-580 

No existing facilities; closest transit connections available to this 

location are SJRTD/SMART buses, WHEELS (Route 20X), MAX 

Commuter bus, Greyhound, Amtrak, Tri Delta transit and ACE, which 

is about 2 miles away. 

Greenville UPRR No existing facilities 

Downtown Tracy Tracer Route A, D/E and SJRTD Route 26 

Tracy ACE No existing facilities; closest transit connection available is Tracer’s 

Route C and Route D/E, which are about 2 miles away. 

Downtown Modesto StaRT, CAT, Ceres Dial-A-Ride, ROTA, MAX Route 25. 

Amtrak Briggsmore MAX 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 

41, 42, AMTRAK, StaRT 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.1 Traffic, Transit, Circulation, and Parking 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.1-13

Potential HST Stations Connecting Transit Service 

Castle AFB, Merced Merced County Transit’s “The Bus” 

Downtown Merced Merced County Transit’s “The Bus” 

Source: Muni, SamTrans, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, AC Transit, Golden Gate Transit, 

Merced County Transit, Caltrain, BART, 2003. 

B. STUDY CORRIDORS AND POTENTIAL HIGH SPEED TRAIN STATIONS 

San Francisco to San Jose Corridor

This corridor includes the areas on the west side of the San Francisco Bay along the Caltrain rail line, 

from the city of San Francisco to the city of San Jose HST station location options. 

The major intercity highway links in the corridor are the US 101 freeway links. Some freeway links in 

this corridor are very congested, operating at LOS E in generalized peak hour in the peak direction. 

As illustrated in Table 3.1-2, the V/Cs of US 101 links in the study corridor vary from 0.72 (LOS C) to 

0.97 (LOS E), showing a range travel conditions in the corridor. 

Three HST stations are expected along this corridor. LOS of cordons around the station location 

options in the corridor varies from LOS A to LOS D (Table 3.1-3). 

One station is being considered for downtown San Francisco, either at a new Transbay Transit Center 

or at the existing Caltrain terminus at 4th and King. Traffic, circulation, and parking conditions are 

slightly better at the 4th and King region than the Transbay Transit Center because the latter is 

situated at a comparatively busier urban location. 

The second station is being considered at the existing Millbrae BART/Caltrain station close to the San 

Francisco International Airport. The third station option would be at the Redwood City or Palo Alto 

Caltrain stations. Traffic, circulation, and transit situations in these two areas are comparable. 

However, parking availability is better at the Redwood City station. 

The existing conditions at these station locations are described in more detail below. 

Transbay Transit Center, San Francisco 

The Transbay Transit Center in San Francisco would be the northernmost HST station location option 

on the west side of San Francisco Bay and is located on Mission Street between First and Beale 

Streets. However, San Francisco Transbay Terminal is a transportation complex in San Francisco 

that currently serves as the San Francisco terminus for transbay buses from San Francisco north to 

Marin County, east to the East Bay, and south to San Mateo County and other long-distance buses. 

In addition to San Francisco's own Muni, its largest tenants are Golden Gate Transit, AC Transit, 

SamTrans, and Greyhound Bus Lines. The Transbay Transit Center is a separate future project that 

would include a bus terminal and a rail station for Caltrain service with or without the HST system. 

In addition to maintaining the current bus services, this proposed terminal would also include a 

tunnel that would extend the Caltrain commuter rail line from its current terminus at 4th and King 

Streets to the new Transbay Transit Center. The heavy rail portion of the terminal would be 

designed to accommodate the planned HST from Los Angeles via the Caltrain line, and thus the 

proposed HST would utilize the planned Caltrain station. 

The major freeways serving the station area are US 101 and I-80. The one-way streets, Howard 

Street (westbound), First Street (southbound), and Fremont Street (northbound), are the major 

arterials serving the station area. Mission Street, another arterial serving the station area, also has a 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.1 Traffic, Transit, Circulation, and Parking 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.1-14

bus lane in each direction. The cordon around this station location option operates at LOS D (V/C = 

0.80). 

The Transbay Transit Center is the San Francisco terminus of AC Transit's transbay bus routes and 

would become the primary terminus station for Caltrain service. Transit services are also provided by 

Golden Gate Transit, SamTrans, and Muni. BART is accessible within walking distance, and the 

Caltrain is accessible through connecting Muni services. See Table 3.1-4 for a detailed listing of 

intermodal connections to this location. Most of the public transit links in the station area operate at 

or above capacity during peak hours, and hence transit load factor or V/C is greater than one. 

The fact that parking supply exceeds demand is primarily a function of the marketplace, which is to 

say that parking is available for a price. In this area around the Transbay Transit Center in San 

Francisco, parking occupancy is currently about 85%, partly because prices can run as high as $30 

per day, although nearby surface lots charge about half of that. In a situation like this, parking can 

provide enough revenue to ensure supply in the area, if not on the site. Hence currently, V/C is less 

than one indicating that parking supply exceeds demand. 

4th and King, San Francisco 

The station location option would be southwest of the Transbay Transit Center, 1.3 miles away. I-80 

and I-280 are the major freeways serving this area. King Street is the major arterial, and Townsend 

and 4th Streets are the minor arterials serving the station area. The cordon around this station 

location option operates at LOS A (V/C = 0.33). 

4th and King is also the current terminal station on the Caltrain line. It is served by MUNI bus transit 

and light rail transit. See Table 3.1-4 for a detailed listing of connections to this location. Most of the 

public transit links in the station area operate at or below capacity during peak hours, and hence 

transit load factor or V/C is less than one. 

Caltrain does not own or have access to parking at this location. This area is in transition, and the 

parking situation may become like that in downtown in 20 years as the Mission Bay development 

builds out. Hence, in the future, high prices for parking would lead to less demand, which could 

ensure enough supply. Parking under baseline conditions is sufficient. Hence currently, V/C is less 

than one to indicate that parking supply exceeds demand. 

Millbrae Station, San Francisco Airport 

The Millbrae station location option is the existing BART/Caltrain station just north of Millbrae 

Avenue. The existing at-grade Millbrae BART/Caltrain station is located at 200 North Rollins Road. 

There are entrances to the station on both the east and west sides of the tracks. The station is 

wheelchair accessible and has bicycle lockers, ticket vending machines, and public telephones. This 

region is served primarily by US 101. SR 82 and Millbrae Avenue, a major arterial, provide access to 

the region. I-280 also provides freeway access to local arterials on the western edge of the city. 

East Millbrae Avenue is a major arterial east of SR 82 and a minor arterial west of SR 82. Trousdale 

Drive is a local street that serves the local traffic. California Drive is a minor arterial south of 

Trousdale Drive. The cordon around this station location option operates at LOS B (V/C = 0.63). 

Transit access is by Caltrain, BART, and SamTrans routes MX, 242, 390, and 391. Most of the public 

transit links in the station area operate at or below capacity during peak hours, and hence transit 

load factor or V/C is less than one. 

Approximately 3,000 parking spaces are available in a five-level parking structure and adjacent 

surface lot, both located on the east side of the station. Monthly reserved, daily (free), midday 

(free), and carpool (free) parking spaces are available in the parking structure and surface lots of the 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.1 Traffic, Transit, Circulation, and Parking 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.1-15

existing BART/Caltrain station. The BART parking garage (3,000-car capacity) is sufficient to meet 

existing demand. Hence, V/C is less than one. 

Redwood City 

The Redwood City HST station location option is the existing Caltrain station located at 1 James 

Avenue. The main entrance to the station is on the west side of the tracks. The station is wheelchair 

accessible and has bicycle lockers, ticket vending machines, and public telephones. US 101 is the 

major freeway serving Redwood City. I-280 also provides freeway access to local arterials on the 

western edge of the city. SR 82, El Camino Real, provides access to the station area. Several 

arterials can be used by local traffic to access the station area. Broadway, Jefferson Avenue, and 

Middlefield Road are the minor arterials serving the area. Major local streets that serve the area are 

James and Hopkins. The cordon around this station location option operates at LOS B (V/C = 0.61). 

Caltrain and SamTrans are the major transit service providers. Seven SamTrans routes and Caltrain 

connect to this location. See Table 3.1-4 for a detailed listing of connections to this location. Most of 

the public transit links in the station area operate at or below capacity during peak hours, and hence 

transit load factor or V/C is less than one. 

Currently, parking at this location is sufficient to meet the existing demand. Hence, V/C is less than 

one. 

Palo Alto 

The Palo Alto HST station location option is the existing Caltrain station site located at 95 University 

Avenue. The station has a historical depot building, is wheelchair accessible, and has bicycle lockers, 

ticket vending machines, and public telephones. The Palo Alto HST station, an alternative to the 

Redwood City station, falls between US 101 and I-280. SR 82 is also used by local traffic to access 

the station area. Local shuttles connect different parts of the city to the Caltrain station. University 

Avenue and Embarcadero Road are the major arterials providing access to the station area. 

Arboretum Road, Palm Drive, and Alma Street are the collector streets feeding the station area. The 

cordon around this station location option operates at LOS D (V/C = 0.85). 

SamTrans, SCVTA, and Caltrain provide transit access to the station area. See Table 3.1-4 for a 

detailed listing of connections to this location. Most of the public transit links in the station area 

operate at or below capacity during peak hours, and hence transit load factor or V/C is less than one. 

The Caltrain station has surface parking lots on both sides of the railroad tracks. Approximately 385 

parking spaces are provided in multiple surface lots adjacent to the station. Currently, there is just 

enough parking at this location to meet the existing demand. Hence, V/C is less than one. 

Oakland to San Jose Corridor

This corridor includes the areas on the east side of San Francisco Bay along I-880 from the City of 

Oakland to the City of San Jose. 

I-880 is the primary highway in this corridor. As shown in Table 3.1-2, I-880 freeway links are 

operating at V/C from 0.82 (LOS D) to 0.96 (LOS E), showing steady-flow to congested travel 

conditions. 

Three or four HST stations are projected for this corridor. Cordons of all station location options 

along the corridor operate at LOS A. The northernmost terminal station on the Oakland to San Jose 

corridor would be adjacent to a BART station, either at West Oakland or at 12th Street/City Center. 

Traffic, circulation, and parking conditions are slightly better at West Oakland location than the 12th 

Street location because the latter is located at a busy urban commercial area. The second station in 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.1 Traffic, Transit, Circulation, and Parking 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.1-16

this corridor is planned adjacent to the BART station at Oakland Coliseum, close to the Oakland 

International Airport. There would also be a station at either Union City or Warm Springs. 

West Oakland 

The West Oakland BART station is located at 1452 7th Street, is wheelchair accessible, and has eight 

bicycle lockers. The underground HST station location option is on 7th Street between Henry Street 

and Mandela Parkway, adjacent to the existing aboveground BART station. I-880 and I-980 are the 

major freeways feeding the region. Adeline Street, 7th Street, and 14th Street are the major arterials 

near the station area. Mandela Parkway is a minor arterial that serves the station area. Peralta and 

8th Street are the local roads serving the area. To the west of Union Street, 8th Street is a one-way 

road (eastbound). To the east of Union Street, it is two-way. The cordon around this station 

location option operates at LOS A (V/C = 0.15). 

Amtrak, AC Transit buses, and BART provide transit services to the station area. AC Transit routes 

13, 14, 19, and 62 offer connections to this location. Most of the public transit links in the station 

area operate at or below capacity during peak hours, and hence transit load factor or V/C is less than 

one. 

The existing West Oakland BART station is surrounded by fee and permit surface parking lots. 

Monthly reserved permit, daily fee, single day reserved permit, extended weekend, and midday 

parking is available in surface lots. Currently, parking at this location is sufficient to meet to the 

existing demand. Hence, V/C is less than one. 

Oakland 12th Street/City Center 

The existing underground BART station is located at 1245 Broadway. The underground HST station 

location option is along 12th Street between Broadway and Martin Luther King Junior Way adjacent to 

and on the west side of the 12th Street BART station. The station would be located in the City 

Center district, an urban commercial area. I-880 is six blocks south of the station location option. 

Broadway, San Pablo, Telegraph, and 14th Street are the major arterials serving the area. All four 

arterials are two-way streets. Webster (westbound) and Franklin (eastbound) provide local access 

and are one-way streets. The cordon around this station location option operates at LOS A (V/C = 

0.40). 

In addition to BART, the station would be served by AC Transit bus lines. See Table 3.1-4 for a 

detailed listing of connections to this location. Most of the public transit links in the station area 

operate at or below capacity during peak hours, and hence transit load factor or V/C is less than one. 

Commercial parking lots, including a garage in the City Center complex, appear to provide sufficient 

parking. Hence, V/C is less than one. 

Oakland Coliseum/Oakland Airport 

The existing Oakland Coliseum BART/Amtrak station is located at 73rd Avenue and San Leandro 

Street. A pedestrian overpass links the BART and Amtrak Capitol Corridor platforms. The HST 

station location option is between 71st Avenue and 73rd Avenue, along the Amtrak railroad tracks. 

I-880 is the major freeway serving the Oakland Airport and Coliseum region. San Leandro Street and 

Hegenberger Road are the major arterials used for accessing the Oakland Airport and Coliseum 

region. 77th Avenue is a local street near the station area. The cordon around this station location 

option operates at LOS A (V/C = 0.30). 

BART and AC Transit are the major transit service providers. Air-BART, a direct shuttle between the 

airport and the BART station, also aids transit. AC Transit Routes 45, 46, 56, 57C, and 98 provide 

connections to this location. Most of the public transit links in the station area operate at or below 

capacity during peak hours and hence transit load factor or V/C is less than one. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.1 Traffic, Transit, Circulation, and Parking 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.1-17

At the BART station there is a surface parking lot along Snell Avenue that is sufficient to handle the 

current demand. Hence, V/C is less than one. 

Union City 

The existing Union City BART station is located on a 14-acre site at Union Square and Decoto Road. 

The entrance to the station is on Union Square on the west side of the tracks. The station location 

option is on 11th Street just to the east of the existing BART station along the existing Niles 

Subdivision track. The major freeway serving the region is I-880. Other major roadways serving the 

region are Alvarado Niles, Decoto Road, and I-238. Decoto and Alvarado Niles are the major arterials 

leading to the station area. The cordon around this station location option operates at LOS A (V/C = 

0.50). 

Union City Transit, SCVTA, BART, and AC Transit serve the area. See Table 3.1-4 for a detailed 

listing of connections to this location. Most of the public transit links in the station area operate at or 

below capacity during peak hours, and hence transit load factor or V/C is less than one. 

There are surface lots for monthly reserved, daily (free), extended weekend, midday (free), and long 

term parking. Currently parking at this location is sufficient to meet the existing demand. Hence, 

V/C is less than one. 

Warm Springs 

No station facilities exist at the Warm Springs station location, although a BART station is proposed 

for the location. The HST station location option is at the intersection of South Grimmer Road and 

Warm Springs Boulevard adjacent to the proposed BART station. The station location option falls 

within the Warm Springs Business District in the City of Fremont. I-680 and I-880 are the closest 

freeways, and Fremont Boulevard, Grimmer Boulevard, and Warm Springs Boulevard are the closest 

major arterials. The cordon around this station location option operates at LOS A (V/C = 0.48). 

AC Transit Route 215 on Warm Springs Boulevard and Route 218 on Grimmer Boulevard are the 

closest transit connections available within half a mile of the station location option. These public 

transit links operate at or below capacity during peak hours, and hence transit load factor or V/C is 

less than one. 

No public parking facilities exist at this location. However, demand for parking is low, and V/C is less 

than one. 

San Francisco Bay Crossings Corridor – Shinn Station

These alignment alternatives include the San Francisco Bay crossings between the cities of 

San Francisco and Oakland near the San Francisco/Oakland Bay Bridge and between the cities of East 

Palo Alto and Newark south of the Dumbarton Bridge and into the City of Fremont. The latter 

comprises a station at Shinn, Union City. The V/C of the I-80 freeway link in this study corridor is 

0.79 (LOS C). 

There are no existing station facilities at the Shinn station location option. The station location option 

would be in the Centerville area of the City of Fremont. The station would be located along the 

existing UPRR and ACE/Capitol Corridor tracks at Shinn Street and Von Euw Com, just east of the 

BART track crossing. SR 84 is the closest freeway, and Shinn Street and Von Euw Com are the major 

arterials feeding this location. The cordon around this station location option operates at LOS A 

(V/C = 0.31). 

The closest transit connection available to this location is through Route 216 of AC Transit, which is 

about 0.6 mile away. Because the demand for transit at this location is low, transit load factor or V/C 

is less than one. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.1 Traffic, Transit, Circulation, and Parking 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.1-18

No public parking facilities exist at this location. However, demand for parking is low, and V/C is less 

than one. 

San Jose to Central Valley Corridor

This corridor includes the areas from the City of San Jose south to the City of Gilroy and east across 

the Diablo Range to the Central Valley. Three alignments are within this corridor: Pacheco, GEA 

North, and Henry Miller. 

US 101 and SR 152 are the primary highways in this corridor. As shown in Table 3.1-2, the US 101 

freeway links from San Jose to SR 152 operate at acceptable conditions (V/C varying from 0.72 to 

0.87). SR 152 from US 101 to I-5 operates at LOS C conditions (V/C = 0.78) 

Two station location options are considered in this corridor: the existing San Jose Diridon Caltrain 

terminal, and a station at either the existing Morgan Hill or Gilroy Caltrain stations. Cordons of all 

station location options along the corridor operate at LOS A. 

San Jose 

The station location option is the existing Diridon Station located at 65 Cahill Street, which serves as 

the central passenger rail depot for San Jose. The area is served by the I-880 and I-280 freeways 

and by the roadways San Carlos, Santa Clara, and SR 82. San Carlos, Park, and Santa Clara are the 

major arterials serving the area. Bird Avenue is a collector street feeding the area. The cordon 

around this station operates at LOS A (V/C = 0.25). 

The Diridon Station provides service for the Capitol Corridor and Coast Starlight Amtrak routes, 

Altamont Commuter Express, Caltrain, and SCVTA light rail. A list of transit lines currently serving the 

location is provided in Table 3.1-4. Most of the public transit links in the station area operate below 

capacity during peak hours, and hence the transit load factor or V/C is less than one. 

At the existing station, approximately 595 spaces are available for all-day parking in surface lots 

adjacent to the station. Because parking is sufficient to meet the demand, V/C is less than one. 

Morgan Hill 

Caltrain has a Morgan Hill station at 17300 Depot Street between East Main and East Dunne 

Avenues. The station is wheelchair accessible and has ticket vending machines, bicycle lockers, and 

public telephones. The station location option is the existing Morgan Hill Caltrain station. US 101 is 

the major freeway in the area. Monterey Street, Hale, and Dunne are the major arterials in the 

station area. Main Street is a minor arterial. The cordon around this station location option operates 

at LOS A (V/C = 0.42). 

The station area is served by Caltrain, SCVTA, and MST. See Table 3.1-4 for a detailed listing of 

intermodal connections to this location. Most of the public transit links in the station area operate 

below capacity during peak hours and hence the transit load factor or V/C is less than one. 

At the existing Caltrain station, all day parking is available in a total of 486 parking spaces, including 

346 standard spaces, 131 compact spaces, 8 handicap spaces, and 1 handicap van accessible space. 

As there is sufficient parking at this location to meet the existing demand, V/C is less than one. 

Gilroy 

The Gilroy HST station location option is the existing Gilroy Caltrain station located at 7150 Monterey 

Street. US 101 is the major freeway and SR 152 the other major highway for accessing the area. 

Monterey Highway is the major arterial feeding the Gilroy station area. Tenth Street is a local road 

that would also be used by local traffic. As described by the cordon analysis (Table 3.1-3), the 

cordon around this station location option operates at LOS A (V/C = 0.44). 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.1 Traffic, Transit, Circulation, and Parking 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.1-19

SCVTA, Caltrain, MST, San Benito County Transit, and Greyhound are the major transit service 

providers. See Table 3.1-4 for a detailed listing of intermodal connections to this location. Most of 

the public transit links in the station area operate below capacity during peak hours and hence the 

transit load factor or V/C is less than one. 

At the existing Caltrain station, all day parking is available in a total of 471 parking spaces, including 

464 standard spaces, 2 handicap spaces, 1 handicap van accessible space, and 4 passenger pickup/drop-off spaces. Because there is sufficient parking at this location to meet the existing demand, 

V/C is less than one. 

East Bay to Central Valley Corridor

This corridor includes the areas from the City of Fremont east through Niles Canyon and into the 

cities of Pleasanton, Dublin, and Livermore. East of the City of Livermore, the alignment alternatives 

in this corridor continue through the Altamont Pass and into the Central Valley via the cities of Tracy 

and Manteca. 

I-580 and I-680 are the primary highways in this corridor. As shown in Table 3.1-2, these intercity 

freeway segments are operating at freeflow to congested conditions, with V/C ratios varying between 

0.51 (LOS A) and 1.06 (LOS F). 

Two stations are being considered for this corridor: one station in Dublin (BART station), Pleasanton 

(Bernal/I-680), or Livermore (Livermore or Greenville), and a second station in Tracy. Within Tracy, 

the two locations being considered are downtown Tracy and Tracy Altamont Commuter Express 

(ACE) close to Banta Road. Currently, all station cordons operate at LOS A. 

Bernal/I-680, Pleasanton 

Currently, no station facilities exist at the Bernal HST station location option. The station location 

option is along the UPRR in the City of Pleasanton. I-680 is the closest freeway for accessing the 

station. The major arterials feeding the Bernal station location option are Bernal Avenue, Main 

Street, and Sunol Boulevard. The cordon around this station location option operates at LOS A (V/C 

= 0.47). 

Service to this location is provided by Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (WHEELS). Routes 

8, 8A, 53, 54, and 602/606 connect to this location because all of these routes stop at locations that 

are a walkable distance from the proposed station location option and are therefore easily accessible. 

Most of the public transit links in the station location option area operate below capacity during peak 

hours, and hence the transit load factor or V/C is less than one. 

There is no public parking available at or in the vicinity of this station location option. However, 

demand for parking is low, and hence V/C is less than one. 

Dublin/Pleasanton 

This station location option would be at the existing Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. 

Dublin/Pleasanton BART station is located at 5801 Owens Drive in Pleasanton between two 

interchanges at Dougherty Road and Hacienda Drive near I-580. Major arterials around this location 

are Owens Drive, Dublin Boulevard via Iron Horse Parkway, and Demarcus Boulevard. The cordon 

around this station location option operates at LOS A (V/C = 0.21). 

The existing BART station is served by several bus connections, including County Connection, 

WHEELS, San Joaquin Regional Transit, and BART. Nine routes are served by WHEELS, all of which 

stop at the BART station. San Joaquin Regional Transit provides connection from the BART station to 

San Joaquin County. In addition, transit agencies such as County Connection and BART provide 

more connections to the surrounding regions. Therefore, as this location is served by more than one 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.1 Traffic, Transit, Circulation, and Parking 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.1-20

transit agency; it is well connected with the surrounding region. For a detailed listing of connections 

to this location, refer to Table 3.1-4. Most of the public transit links in the station area operate at or 

below capacity during peak hours, and hence the transit load factor or V/C is less than one. 

Monthly reserved, daily (free), extended weekend, midday (free), carpool (free), and long-term 

parking are all available just south of the station along Owens Drive and in two surface lots north of 

the station. A pedestrian underpass connects the parking areas on both sides of the tracks and 

serves as an entrance point to the station. The parking demand at this station exceeds capacity 

during peak hours, and hence V/C is greater than one. 

Livermore I-580 

There are no station facilities at the station location option along I-580 just west of the intersection 

with North Livermore Avenue. The closest major arterial to this location is North Livermore Avenue. 

The cordon around this station location option operates at LOS D (V/C = 0.86). 

This station location option is served by Tri-Valley buses. Currently, routes 12, 12A, 12V, 15, and 20 

stop at distances that are walkable to and from the station location option. These connections are 

provided by WHEELS. Most of the public transit links in the station location area operate below 

capacity during peak hours, and hence the transit load factor or V/C is less than one. 

The station location option is in an area of undeveloped open space. North of I-580, the land is 

designated open space. There is currently no parking at this location. However, there is a park-andride lot nearby. 

Downtown Livermore 

The station location option is along the south side of the UPRR tracks between Murietta Boulevard 

and P Street. I-580 is the closest freeway for accessing the station. An ACE train station and 

Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA) Transit Center are located less than 0.5 mile to 

the east of this Livermore station location option. The major arterials feeding this station location 

option are Stanley Boulevard and Murietta Boulevard. The cordon around this station location option 

operates at LOS A (V/C = 0.46). 

Currently, this station location is served by Tri-Valley buses with additional ACE, Amtrak, and 

Greyhound connections available at the Livermore Transit Center, Dart Livermore, and ACE station. 

Seven routes are operated by WHEELS, all of which stop at the location. All of these buses stop at 

locations that are walkable from this location option and thus easily accessible. For a detailed listing 

of connections to this location, refer to Table 3.1-4. Most public transit links in the station location 

option area operate below capacity during peak hours, and hence the transit load factor or V/C is less 

than one. 

The parking supply in downtown Livermore consists of on-street public parking and public parking 

garages. 

Greenville I-580, Livermore 

No station facilities exist at the Greenville I-580 HST station location option. Currently there are two 

ACE stations in Livermore, one on Vasco Road near Brisa Street, and another on Railroad Avenue 

adjacent to the transit center in downtown Livermore. The station location option would be adjacent 

to the southern edge of I-580 just east of the Greenville Road interchange. This is a greenfield site 

with no existing transit facilities or railroad right-of-way. Land use in the immediate vicinity of the 

station location option is primarily open space. I-580 is the closest freeway for accessing the station. 

The closest major arterial to this location is Greenville Road. The cordon around this station location 

option operates at LOS A (V/C = 0.44). 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.1 Traffic, Transit, Circulation, and Parking 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.1-21

The station location option is not served by transit facilities. San Joaquin Regional Transit District 

(SJRTD)/SMART buses, WHEELS (Route 20X), MAX Commuter bus, Greyhound, Amtrak, Tri Delta 

Transit, and ACE offer service to locations that are about 2 miles away. 

No public parking is available close to this location. 

Greenville UPRR, Livermore 

No station facilities exist at the Greenville UPRR HST station location option. Currently there are two 

ACE stations in Livermore, one on Vasco Road near Brisa Street and another on Railroad Avenue 

adjacent to the transit center in downtown Livermore. The station location option would be adjacent 

to Greenville Road just south of Patterson Pass Road. This is a greenfield site with no existing transit 

facilities or railroad right-of-way. Development of this site would require the placement of a new 

track and station facilities. I-580 is the closest freeway for accessing the station, and Greenville Road 

is the major arterial that would feed this location. The cordon around this station location option 

operates at LOS A (V/C = 0.21). 

There are no transit services within half a mile of the station location option. 

No public parking is available at or in the vicinity of this location option. 

Tracy Downtown 

The downtown Tracy HST station location option is along the UPRR right-of-way at East 6th Street just 

west of the intersection with North McArthur Drive. The station location option is at the southern end 

of the downtown area. I-205 is the closest freeway for accessing the station. The closest major 

arterial is Mc Arthur Road. The cordon around this station location option operates at LOS A (V/C = 

0.34). 

“Tracer,” the City of Tracy’s fixed bus route service, and SJRTD provide transit service to the station 

location option. Currently, Tracer’s Route A and Route D/E (commuter) along with Route 26, an 

intercity route operated by SJRTD, serve the area. Bus stops for these routes are located within a 

brief walk of the station location option. Route 26 connects with Tracer in downtown Tracy and 

future Manteca transit buses in downtown Manteca. Most of the public transit links in the station 

area operate below capacity during peak hours, and hence the transit load factor or V/C is less than 

one. 

Public parking lots are located on the east and west sides of Central Avenue at 6th Street, close to the 

station location option. Parking lots also are located behind the businesses on the north and south 

sides of 10th Street between B Street and Central Avenue. Currently, parking spaces seem adequate 

to serve the existing demand, and hence V/C is less than one. 

Tracy ACE 

The other Tracy station location option is along the ACE railroad right-of-way, west of South Banta 

Road and about 1.5 miles south of I-205. This station location option is approximately 3 miles east 

of the existing Tracy ACE station and is outside the city limits but within the City of Tracy sphere of 

influence. I-205 is the closest freeway for accessing the station. The closest major arterial is South 

Banta Road. The cordon around this station location option operates at LOS A (V/C = 0.01). 

Tracer and ACE provide transit service in the general area. The closest transit connection available is 

the ACE train service and Route C and Route D/E, which are about 2 miles away. 

The station site is in a designated industrial area and is surrounded by undeveloped land/farmland, 

with limited off-street parking. Because the area is undeveloped, there is very little parking demand 

at this location. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.1 Traffic, Transit, Circulation, and Parking 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.1-22

Central Valley Corridor

The Central Valley corridor includes the areas of the Central Valley from the City of Stockton south to 

the northern areas of Madera County. There are six alignment alternatives in the Central Valley 

corridor that follow the existing UPRR and BNSF rail lines. 

I-5 and SR 99 are the primary highways in this corridor. As shown in Table 3.1-2, these intercity 

freeway segments operate at congested LOS with V/C varying from 0.99 (LOS E) to 1.04 (LOS F). 

Four station location options are being considered in this corridor. The two locations being 

considered for the Modesto station are downtown Modesto or close to East Briggsmore Road. The 

second station in this corridor would be at Merced. The two locations being considered are 

downtown Merced and Castle AFB. All station cordons except downtown Merced operate at LOS A. 

The cordon surrounding the downtown Merced station location option operates at LOS E, showing 

congested travel conditions. 

Modesto Downtown 

No station facilities exist at the downtown Modesto HST station location option. The existing Amtrak 

station is located on the northeastern edge of the city off of E. Briggsmore Avenue/Parker Road. The 

downtown Modesto HST station location option is along the Southern Pacific rail line between Low 

Street and Olive Street and parallel to 8th Street in downtown Modesto. 

Regional access to downtown Modesto is provided by SR 99, SR 132, and SR 108. These routes are 

located close to the station area. The roadway network in the downtown area is made up of a grid 

system with one-way roadway segments. Major east-west arterials in the downtown area are L 

Street (SR 132 and SR 108) and K Street (SR 108). These two streets form a one-way couplet with 

three lanes provided on each facility. The major north-south arterial is 9th Street (SR 132). Other 

roadway facilities that provide access to the station area include north-south 7th, 10th, 11th, and 

12th Streets, and east-west oriented J Street. The cordon around this station location option operates 

at LOS A (V/C = 0.53). 

The Downtown Transportation Center is located 1 block away at 9th and J Streets. With convenient 

access to the Downtown Transportation Center, connections can be made to StaRT, CAT, Ceres DialA-Ride, and ROTA. The downtown station site is located 2 blocks northwest of the MAX Center, the 

transfer point for 16 bus routes providing 26 buses in the AM peak hour. Most of the public transit 

links in the station area operate below capacity during peak hours, and hence the transit load factor 

or V/C is less than one. 

Parking lots bound the downtown Modesto station area, with lots on 8th, 9th, K, and I Streets. A 700-

space garage is on 10th Street. A small parking structure is on 11th street between J and I streets. In 

addition, the city-county building offers public parking and is located at the corner of 11th and K 

streets. There is also a 700-space parking garage at the corner of 12th and I Streets. With all of this 

parking available, V/C is less than one. 

Amtrak Briggsmore (Modesto) 

There is an existing Amtrak station located at E. Briggsmore Avenue/Parker Road. The suburban 

Modesto HST station location option is adjacent to the existing Amtrak station at the intersection of 

East Briggsmore Avenue and Santa Fe Avenue, approximately 5 miles northeast of downtown 

Modesto. The closest freeways to this location are SR 99, SR 132, and SR 108. East Briggsmore 

Avenue and Santa Fe Avenue are the two major arterials closest to this location. The cordon around 

this station location option operates at LOS A (V/C = 0.59). 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.1 Traffic, Transit, Circulation, and Parking 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.1-23

MAX route 25 connects the Amtrak station with the Downtown Transportation Center. Currently, this 

location is served by 19 MAX routes and StaRT. Most of the public transit links in the station area 

operate below capacity during peak hours, and hence the transit load factor or V/C is less than one. 

The area surrounding the East Briggsmore Avenue site is generally undeveloped, and public parking 

supplies are those provided at the Amtrak station (approximately 150 parking spaces). 

Castle AFB, Merced 

No station facilities exist at the Castle AFB HST station location option, which is in an area just west 

of the defunct Castle AFB airfield. 

The AFB is located approximately 8 miles from downtown Merced, and approximately 10 miles from 

the new UC Merced Campus. The major access roads around this location are Headwind Drive, 

Shaffer Road, and Santa Fe Drive. The cordon around this station location option operates at LOS A 

(V/C = 0.45). 

Merced County Transit’s “The Bus” system operates locally and beyond, with connections out of the 

Merced Transpo Center to Turlock, Atwater, Livingston, Los Banos, and Dos Palos. Most of the public 

transit links in the station area operate below capacity during peak hours, and hence the transit load 

factor or V/C is less than one. 

The areas surrounding the Castle AFB station and MCE area are currently undeveloped, with limited 

off-street parking supplies. 

Merced Downtown 

The downtown Merced HST station location option is on 16th Street between M and O Streets. The 

station area is currently occupied by a Southern Pacific Depot and is used for non-rail purposes and a 

regional bus transportation center. There is a historical Southern Pacific Company station in Merced 

at 15th Street between M and O Streets. SR 99 lies a block to the south. The closest major arterials 

are O Street, M Street, Main Street, and 16th Street. The cordon around this station location option 

operates at LOS E (V/C = 0.95). 

Merced County Transit’s “The Bus” system operates locally and beyond, with connections out of the 

Merced Transpo Center to Turlock, Atwater, Livingston, Los Banos, and Dos Palos. Most of the public 

transit links in the station area operate below capacity during peak hours, and hence the transit load 

factor or V/C is less than one. 

Merced’s downtown parking district provides approximately 1,400 public parking spaces. Currently 

the parking supply exceeds demand, and hence the V/C is less than one. 

3.1.3 Environmental Consequences 

This section describes the traffic, transit, circulation, and parking conditions under the No Project and the 

HST Alignment Alternatives. Subsections A and B below summarize the impacts (Tables 3.1-2 and 3.1-3) 

while Subsection C discusses impacts in detail by study corridor. 

A. NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE 

The No Project Alternative would include programmed and funded transportation improvements to 

the existing transportation system that will be implemented and operational by 2030. 

The primary differences between existing conditions and the No Project Alternative are the increased 

level of travel demand on local roads that lead to the stations and the implementation of new 

infrastructure. Improvements (programmed and funded) focus on existing modes of transportation; 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.1 Traffic, Transit, Circulation, and Parking 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.1-24

therefore, the same modes of intercity transport will continue to be available. The programmed or 

funded transportation improvements assumed to be in operation by 2030 include some capacity 

improvements but generally no systemwide capacity improvements (e.g., major new highway 

construction) and will not result in a general improvement or stabilization of existing highways across 

the study area. 

As discussed in Section 3.1.2, Affected Environment, six freeway links in the study area are very 

congested in 2005, operating at LOS E or F in the peak hour in the peak direction. V/Cs are expected 

to worsen on most links under the No Project Alternative. Despite planned highway capacity 

increases on most links, conditions are expected to improve only on four of the 18 links. Overall, 

traffic congestion is projected to worsen because travel rates (or the number of trips taken) are 

increasing by 2% per year at the gateways to the Bay Area. Traffic projections for the HST analysis 

show that commute trips into the Bay Area are expected to increase by 69% between 2005 and 

2030. As a result, 13 of the 18 links are projected to operate at LOS E or F in 2030 (Table 3.1-2). 

As described in Section 3.1.2, Affected Environment, some roadways leading to the station location 

options currently are congested. It should be noted that for some stations, even though the cordon 

surrounding station might operate at acceptable LOS, one or more roadways leading to the station 

location option could be operating at LOS E or LOS F (V/C greater than 0.9 or 1.0). These conditions 

are expected to deteriorate further under the No Project Alternative. Capacity under No Project 

conditions would be insufficient to accommodate the projected growth in traffic. V/Cs of cordons for 

all station location options in the study region would deteriorate under No Project conditions and are 

projected to experience an impact at the cordon level (Table 3.1-3). 

Currently, parking lots in several of the BART and Caltrain stations are either at capacity or 

approaching capacity, with riders finding it hard to find parking spaces during peak hours. BART's 

strategic plan calls for improvements to station access by all modes through the promotion of 

alternatives to driving alone. This includes increasing the use of alternative modes of access 

including taxis, carpools, drop-off, shuttles, buses, walking, and bicycles to and from BART. As part 

of this, BART proposes to add additional parking spaces at selected existing stations to accommodate 

parking demand from the proposed BART to Silicon Valley extension. New parking facilities are 

planned as part of the new West Dublin/Pleasanton Station to add another 1,200 parking spaces. 

BART also plans to add another 500 parking spaces at the existing Dublin/Pleasanton Station in the 

future. Additional facilities may be constructed if infill BART stations are developed in the future. 

However, at this time there are no plans to significantly increase parking at existing BART stations.2

 

According to the Caltrain Capitol Improvements Plan, Caltrain proposes to add approximately as 

much parking as the increased demand in year 2020. Although this addition might improve the 

overall parking situation in the system, station-specific situations might not necessarily improve. 

As a result, the parking situation at all the existing stations comprised within the above two systems 

would either remain the same or would deteriorate. 

B. HIGH SPEED RAIL 

Based on travel forecasts with and without HST alternatives, overall intercity highway conditions 

would improve with the HST. Table 3.1-2 illustrates the peak-period trips diverted on each link and 

the resulting changes in V/C. Of the 18 links analyzed, 15 or 16 links, depending on the alignment 

alternative, show V/C improvements compared with 2030 No Build conditions ranging from less than 

1% to greater than 20%. The Pacheco Pass alternatives show improvement on 16 links, while the 

Altamont Pass alternatives show improvement on 15 links. The links that degrade in performance in 

 

2

 Malcolm Quint, Principal Planner, San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, May 2007. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.1 Traffic, Transit, Circulation, and Parking 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.1-25

either case do so only slightly. The general intercity highway conditions would remain at poor LOS, 

however, with 12 or 13 links projected to experience LOS E or F in 2030 under the Pacheco Pass 

alternatives and Altamont Pass alternatives, respectively. The intercity highway links are explained in 

more detail under the pertinent corridor in Subsection C, Study Corridors and Potential High Speed 

Train Stations. 

HST station trip generation was calculated based on the 2030 high demand forecast for HST service. 

The HST trips were then distributed to and from HST station location options. These trips are 

additions to the background traffic forecast (by the MTC travel model, or other travel models) for the 

arterial streets around each station. 

The HST stations would have adverse impacts in some areas as a result of adding traffic to streets 

already congested with other traffic under the No Project Alternative in 2030. Note that the capacity 

of these arterial streets would be the same under both the No Project Alternative and the HST. A 

cordon analysis was conducted to see how the traffic operations on the streets vary under the two 

alternatives. This analysis looked at the traffic operations of the cordon surrounding the station area, 

as well as the individual streets in the cordon. Traffic operations in the cordon surrounding the 

station area would deteriorate slightly in all 26 locations, but would deteriorate from LOS D to LOS E 

or F in four cases or from LOS E or F to a worse LOS E or F in three cases. Subsection C below 

describes in more detail the differences in arterial operations at each station location option. 

C. STUDY CORRIDORS AND POTENTIAL HIGH SPEED TRAIN STATIONS 

By 2030, traffic conditions throughout the traffic study area are expected to worsen, and only limited 

improvements to transportation facilities are funded and programmed for implementation by 2030. 

Steadily increasing regional and urban traffic affects intercity commutes by delaying travelers where 

capacity is constrained. The HST would reduce long-term impacts on freeways and airports by 

diverting intercity automobile and airplane trips to the HST system. Table 3.1-2 lists the V/Cs and 

LOS of different highway links in the region under the No Project Alternative and two HST scenarios: 

the Pacheco Pass alternatives and the Altamont Pass alternatives. 

Generally, public transit and goods movement are operating under the traffic conditions as other 

traffic. Compared to conditions under the No Project Alternative in 2030, V/C would improve on most 

intercity links under the HST alternatives. Goods movement would be generally improved by the 

HST, with the impacts following the freeway condition improvements resulting from diverted traffic. 

The remainder of this section describes the conditions for the HST Alignment Alternatives and station 

location options and compares in more detail the relative differences between the No Project 

Alternative and the HST Alternatives. This section is organized by corridors and then by station. 

Tables 3.1-2 and 3.1-3 summarize the findings of this evaluation. 

San Francisco to San Jose Corridor

This corridor includes the areas on the west side of San Francisco Bay along the Caltrain rail line from 

the city of San Francisco to the city of San Jose. 

The intercity highway links in the corridor are the US 101 freeway links. Under the 2030 No Project 

Alternative, these links would operate at LOS C to F with volume to capacity ratio ranging from 0.79 

to 1.47. The HST would alleviate some congestion on these freeway links by diverting some of the 

intercity automobile trips to the HST system, but it would increase the upper end of the V/C ratio to 

1.48 from 1.47 in the No Project alternative. However, the lower end of the V/C ratio would 

decrease to 0.75 from 0.79 in the case of No Project. In the case of the Altamont Pass alternatives, 

the V/C for the US 101 link between San Francisco to San Francisco Airport would decrease by about 

3% as compared to the No Project alternative. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.1 Traffic, Transit, Circulation, and Parking 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.1-26

Overall, there is a very slight difference in the effects of the two HST alternatives on V/C, and there is 

no difference in the LOS that ranges from C to F. 

This corridor includes HST station location options in San Francisco (at the Transbay Transit Center or 

at 4th and King), Millbrae, and Redwood City or Palo Alto. With additional vehicles using the 

roadways to reach HST stations, LOS of these roadways would deteriorate compared to the No 

Project Alternative. The traffic impact on the cordon around the Transbay Transit Center would 

deteriorate from LOS D to LOS F. The impact on all other station cordons would be similar to or 

slightly worse as compared to the cordon traffic conditions under the No Project Alternative. 

While at the comparatively busier urban location of the Transbay Transit Center the overall levels of 

operation would deteriorate from LOS D to LOS F under the No Project Alternative, at the 4th and 

King location the LOS would only deteriorate from LOS A to LOS B. Although there is no parking 

proposed at both these locations, as discussed in detail below, due to the high price of parking at 

these locations, sufficient parking would be available to accommodate the demand. 

Traffic, circulation, and transit situations in Redwood City or Palo Alto Caltrain station location option 

areas are comparable, with slightly more base traffic on the streets feeding Redwood City station. 

Compared to the Palo Alto station location option, parking availability would be better at the 

Redwood City station and would remain so during No Project conditions. However, with the addition 

of HST traffic, neither station would be able to accommodate the parking demand even with the 

additional parking spaces proposed for the HST system. 

Transbay Transit Center, San Francisco 

By 2030 even without the HST, most of the roadways surrounding the station location option would 

operate near capacity. The cordon surrounding the station area would operate at LOS D (V/C = 

0.90). With the addition of HST traffic, the Pacheco Pass alternatives would have a V/C of 1.08 (LOS 

F), and in the case of the Altamont Pass alternatives, the V/C would be 1.03 (LOS F). 

The proposed Transbay Transit Center would be a major transportation hub in downtown San 

Francisco. SamTrans, AC Transit, Muni, Golden Gate Transit, Greyhound, and Amtrak buses would 

serve the Transbay Transit Center. A potential below-grade pedestrian route could connect the 

Transbay Transit Center to BART and the Market Street Muni subway lines. The Metropolitan 

Transportation Commission’s Transbay Transit Center Improvement Plan details a new 1 million 

square foot bus and rail transit facility as well as new transit-oriented development surrounding the 

terminal. The terminal would include 30 bus bays on a single elevated bus level and 10 bus bays on 

a below grade mezzanine level plus an underground train station for future high-speed and 

conventional intercity and corridor rail service. Being in an urban hub, much of the HST station 

traffic would use transit services to access the station. Because the transit system in the region 

already would be operating at or above capacity during peak hours, this additional traffic would 

burden the transit lines further. Hence, the transit load factor or V/C would be greater than one. 

With the addition of HST service to the Transbay Transit Center, the increase in parking demand 

would range from 2,000 to 3,000 spaces in the case of the Pacheco Pass alternatives and from 1,500 

to 2,100 spaces in the case of the Altamont Pass alternatives. Because it is assumed that the private 

sector would respond to the demand at market rates and provide sufficient parking at or close to this 

location to accommodate the demand at this location, the V/C would be less than one. Basically, the 

assumption is that the HST riders have adequate parking if they pay $25 per day, the current market 

rate for the area. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.1 Traffic, Transit, Circulation, and Parking 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.1-27

4th Street and King Street, San Francisco 

In 2030 without an HST station, the cordon surrounding the area would operate at LOS A (V/C = 

0.40). With the addition of HST traffic, in the case of the Pacheco Pass alternatives, the V/C be 0.69 

(LOS B) and in the case of the Altamont Pass alternatives, the V/C would be 0.61 (LOS B). 

4th and King is also a station on the Caltrain line. Passengers at the existing Caltrain station can 

transfer to various MUNI buses and the N-Judah or T-Line light rail. With these transit services in 

operation at this location, transit load factor or V/C would be less than one. 

With the addition of an HST station, increase in parking demand would range from 2,000 to 3,000 

spaces in the case of the Pacheco Pass alternatives and from 1,500 to 2,100 spaces in the case of the 

Altamont Pass alternatives. Because it is assumed that the private sector would respond to the 

demand at market rates and provide sufficient parking at or close to this location to accommodate 

the demand at this location, the V/C would be less than one. Basically, the assumption is that the 

HST riders have adequate parking if they pay $25 per day, the current market rate for the area. 

Millbrae Station, San Francisco Airport 

By 2030 even without an HST station, most of the roadways surrounding the station location option 

would operate near capacity. The cordon surrounding the station would operate at LOS E (V/C = 

0.91). With the addition of HST-related traffic, in the case of the Pacheco Pass or Altamont Pass 

alternatives, the V/C would be 0.96 (LOS E). 

At this station location option, connections are available with BART, Caltrain, and SamTrans buses. 

Transit lines at this location operate at or below capacity, and therefore the transit load factor or V/C 

is less than one. 

Parking is currently available in the parking structure and surface lots of the existing BART/Caltrain 

station. With the addition of an HST station, increase in parking demand would range from 2,400 to 

2,500 spaces in the case of the Pacheco Pass alternatives and from 2,100 to 2,500 spaces in the case 

of the Altamont Pass alternatives. As part of this station location option, the parking area would be 

expanded by adding a new two-level parking garage on Sierra Avenue and Isabel Alley, although 

current extra capacity in the BART/Caltrain garage may make this addition unnecessary. There 

would be sufficient parking to accommodate the demand at this location and hence ensure that the 

parking V/C would be less than one. 

Redwood City 

By 2030 even without an HST station, most of the roadways surrounding this station location option 

would operate near capacity. The cordon surrounding the station area would operate at LOS B (V/C 

= 0.68). With the addition of HST-related traffic, in the case of the Pacheco Pass alternatives, the 

V/C would be 0.72 (LOS C), and in the case of the Altamont Pass alternatives, the V/C would be 0.71 

(LOS C). 

Connections available at this station include Caltrain and SamTrans. Transit lines would operate at or 

below capacity and hence the transit load factor or V/C is less than one. 

With the addition of an HST station, increase in parking demand would range from 3,000 to 3,900 

spaces in the case of the Pacheco Pass alternatives and from 2,300 to 3,000 spaces in the case of the 

Altamont Pass alternatives. If this HST rail station location option is selected, the existing surface 

parking area adjacent to the south side of the tracks off Brewster Avenue would be expanded to 

ensure sufficient number of spaces to meet the demand at this location. Therefore, the V/C would 

be less than one. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.1 Traffic, Transit, Circulation, and Parking 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.1-28

Palo Alto 

By 2030 without an HST station, most of the roadways surrounding the station location option would 

operate below capacity. The cordon surrounding the HST station area would operate at LOS A (V/C 

= 0.47). Even with the addition of HST traffic, in the case of the Pacheco Pass alternatives, the V/C 

would be 0.50 (LOS A) and in the case of the Altamont Pass alternatives, the V/C would continue to 

be 0.49 (LOS A). 

Intermodal connections available at this station include Caltrain, SamTrans, Dumbarton Express, 

SCVTA, Palo/Alto Crosstown/Embarcadero Shuttle, East Palo Alto Shuttle, and Stanford Marguerite 

Shuttle. These transit lines would operate at or below capacity, and hence the transit load factor or 

V/C is less than one. 

With the addition of an HST station, increase in parking demand would range from 3,000 to 3,900 

spaces in the case of the Pacheco Pass alternatives and from 2,300 to 3,000 spaces in the case of the 

Altamont Pass alternatives. The Caltrain station has surface parking lots on both sides of the railroad 

tracks. The HST station location option would include a 4-story parking facility on the western side of 

the tracks, in the southern portion of El Camino Park. This additional parking would be sufficient to 

accommodate the demand, and hence the V/C would be less than one. 

Oakland to San Jose Corridor

This corridor includes the areas on the east side of San Francisco Bay along I-880 from the City of 

Oakland to the City of San Jose. 

The intercity highway links in this corridor are the I-880 freeway links. With rising congestion, under 

the 2030 No Project Alternative, the I-880 freeway links in this segment would all operate at LOS F 

with volume to capacity ratio ranging from 1.12 to 1.58. The HST would alleviate some congestion 

on these freeway links by diverting some of the intercity automobile trips to the HST system. 

Although the freeway links would still operate at LOS F, for the Pacheco Pass alternatives, the V/C 

would range from 1.10 to 1.58 and for the Altamont Pass alternatives, the V/C would range from 

1.10 to 1.57. In the case of the Altamont high alternative, the V/Cs for the Interstate 880 links 

between I-80 and I-580 and between I-580 and Fremont/Newark would decrease by 3 and 2%, 

respectively. 

Three HST stations are projected in this corridor: Oakland (West Oakland or 12th Street), Oakland 

Coliseum, and either Union City or Warm Springs. 

The Oakland HST station location option would be adjacent to the BART station either at West 

Oakland or at 12th Street/City Center. Traffic, circulation, and parking conditions are slightly better 

at the West Oakland location than the 12th Street location because the latter is a busy urban 

commercial area. In the 12th Street station location option, a few roadway segments would operate 

at LOS F both with the No Project and with an HST station. The proposed HST system would provide 

parking at the Oakland City Center station sufficient to serve demand, and the V/C would be less 

than one. Even though the BART station at West Oakland has parking spaces, on weekdays these 

spaces would likely be used by the BART patrons. However, enough parking would be provided for 

HST users, and thus the V/C at this location would be less than one. 

There is also a potential station location option at either Union City or Warm Springs. One or more 

streets in Warm Springs or Union City would operate at LOS E or LOS F. Sufficient parking would be 

provided to accommodate the demand at these stations. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.1 Traffic, Transit, Circulation, and Parking 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.1-29

West Oakland 

In 2030 without an HST station, the cordon surrounding the station location option would operate at 

LOS A (V/C = 0.16). Even with the addition of the HST, under both the Pacheco Pass and Altamont 

Pass alternatives, V/Cs would be 0.32 (LOS A). 

Passengers at the West Oakland station location option could connect to BART and AC Transit buses. 

Currently, AC Transit buses (Routes 13, 19, and 62) stop at the station site. BART is located adjacent 

to this site. Transit lines would operate at or below capacity, and hence the transit load factor or V/C 

is less than one. 

The existing West Oakland BART station is surrounded by fee and permit surface parking lots. With 

the addition of an HST station in the area, parking demand would increase. The existing parking can 

only accommodate BART users and would not be adequate to serve the additional HST. However, 

enough parking would be provided for HST users, and thus the V/C at this location would be less 

than one. 

Oakland 12th Street/City Center 

In 2030 in the absence of an HST station, the cordon surrounding the station location option would 

operate at LOS A (V/C = 0.45). Even with the addition of the HST, under both the Pacheco Pass 

and Altamont Pass alternatives, V/Cs would be 0.53 (LOS A). Even though the cordon as a whole 

operates at acceptable LOS, the operations on southbound Franklin Avenue, south of 8th Street, 

would deteriorate from LOS C (V/C = 0.79) to LOS F (V/C = 1.06). Southbound Telegraph Avenue, 

south of Grand Avenue, would operate at LOS F both under the No Project Alternative and HST (V/C 

= 1.34 and 1.37, respectively). Similarly, northbound Webster Avenue, south of 8th Street, would 

operate at LOS F both under the No Project and HST (V/C = 1.18 and 1.45, respectively.) 

Even with the addition of HST, the transit links are anticipated to operate at acceptable levels of 

service. Hence, the transit load factor or V/C is less than one. 

The addition of an HST station in the area would increase parking demand as compared to the No 

Project Alternative. Development of this station location option includes four levels of underground 

parking. Assuming that these additional parking spaces would accommodate the increased demand, 

the V/C at this location would be less than one. 

Oakland Coliseum/Oakland Airport 

In 2030 in the absence of an HST station, the cordon surrounding the location would operate at LOS 

A (V/C = 0.45). Even with the addition of the HST, under both the Pacheco Pass and Altamont Pass 

alternatives, V/Cs would be 0.52 (LOS A). 

Passengers at the Oakland Coliseum station can transfer to BART, Amtrak, AC Transit, and the 

AirBART shuttle to Oakland Airport. Even with the addition of HST, the transit links are anticipated to 

operate at acceptable levels of service. Hence, the transit load factor or V/C is less than one. 

The addition of an HST station in the area would increase parking demand as compared to the No 

Project Alternative. In addition to the existing BART station parking along Snell Avenue, two new 

surface parking lots on either side of 73rd Avenue would be provided. Based on the assumption that 

these additional parking spaces would accommodate the increased demand, the V/C at this location 

would be less than one. 

Union City 

In 2030 in the absence of an HST station, the cordon surrounding the station location option would 

operate at LOS A (V/C = 0.55). With the addition of HST-related traffic, in the case of the Pacheco 

Pass alternatives, the V/C would be 0.67 (LOS B) and in the case of the Altamont Pass alternatives, 

the V/C would be 0.67 (LOS B). Even though the cordon as a whole operates at acceptable LOS, the 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.1 Traffic, Transit, Circulation, and Parking 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.1-30

operations on southbound Decoto Road, south of Alvarado Niles Road, would worsen from LOS C 

(V/C = 0.79) to LOS E (V/C = 0.95). 

Passengers at the Union City BART station would be able to connect to AC Transit, SamTrans, Union 

City Transit, Amtrak, and future Dumbarton service. Even with the addition of the HST, the transit 

links are anticipated to operate at acceptable levels of service. Hence, the transit load factor or V/C 

is less than one. 

With the addition of an HST station, the increase in parking demand would range from 3,000 to 

3,9003

 spaces in the case of the Pacheco Pass alternatives and from 1,300 to 1,800 spaces in the 

case of the Altamont Pass alternatives. The HST station location option would include new parking 

spaces along the eastern side of the right-of-way in addition to the existing BART parking lot on the 

western side. Because of the provision of these additional parking spaces, the V/C at this station 

location option would be less than one. 

Warm Springs 

In 2030 in the absence of an HST station, the cordon surrounding the station location option would 

operate at LOS A (V/C = 0.46). Even with the addition of the HST, under both the Pacheco Pass and 

Altamont Pass alternatives, V/Cs would be 0.47 (LOS A). Even though the cordon as a whole 

operates at an acceptable LOS, the operations at southbound Warm Springs Boulevard, south of 

Grimmer Boulevard, would deteriorate from LOS C (V/C = 0.79) to LOS F (V/C = 1.10). Further, 

operations at southbound Fremont Boulevard, south of Grimmer Boulevard, would worsen from LOS 

B (V/C = 0.69) to LOS E (V/C = 0.91). 

Plans for the new BART station at Warm Springs include access to SCVTA and Alameda–Contra Costa 

(AC) Transit buses. Buses would access the station via the surface parking lot from Grimmer Road. 

Adjacent to the parking lot for the HST station location option would be a bus transfer lot. Even with 

the addition of HST, the transit links are expected to operate at acceptable LOS. Hence, the transit 

load factor or V/C is less than one. 

The new BART station is anticipated to provide approximately 2,040 parking spaces. A new HST 

station would include a surface parking lot that would be sufficient to meet the projected demand. 

The addition of an HST station in the area would increase parking demand by about 1,300 to 1,800 

spaces in the Altamont Pass alternatives. BART environmental documents indicate that by 2025, 

BART parking would be fully utilized by BART patrons. However, since additional parking would be 

constructed so as to meet the HST parking demand, V/C would be less than one. 

San Francisco Bay Crossings Corridor – Shinn Station

These crossing alignment alternatives include the San Francisco Bay crossings between the cities of 

San Francisco and Oakland near the San Francisco/Oakland Bay Bridge and between the cities of East 

Palo Alto and Newark south of the Dumbarton Bridge and into the City of Fremont. In the latter 

case, there is one proposed station at Shinn, Union City. 

The intercity freeway link in this corridor is the Interstate 80 link that runs between San Francisco 

and I-880. Under the No Project alternative, this link operates at a V/C ratio of 1.18 (LOS F). All the 

other HST alternatives would operate at LOS F (V/C ranging from 1.17 to 1.18). 

In 2030 in the absence of an HST station, the cordon surrounding the station location option would 

operate at LOS A (V/C = 0.46). Even with the addition of HST-related traffic, under both the 

 

3

 Demand for Warms Springs under Altamont is used to approximate the parking demand at Union City because no forecasts are 

currently available. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.1 Traffic, Transit, Circulation, and Parking 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.1-31

Pacheco as well as the Altamont Pass alternatives, the cordon surrounding the station area would 

operate at LOS A (V/C = 0.49). 

Currently, the closest transit connection available near the station location option is 0.6 mile away 

and is provided by AC Transit bus route 216 along Peralta Boulevard (off Shinn Street). Connections 

with Amtrak Capitol Corridor and ACE would be established. Even with the addition of the HST, the 

transit links are anticipated to operate at acceptable levels of service. Hence, the transit load factor 

or V/C is less than one. 

The addition of an HST station in the area would increase parking demand by about 1,300 to 1,800 

spaces in the Altamont Pass alternatives. However, the Shinn station location option includes a 

surface parking lot at the intersection of Von Euw Com and Shinn Avenue. Based on the assumption 

that the additional parking spaces would accommodate the increased demand, V/C would be less 

than one. 

 San Jose to Central Valley Corridor

This corridor includes the areas from the City of San Jose south to the City of Gilroy and east across 

the Diablo Range to the Central Valley. 

The intercity highway links in this corridor are the US 101 freeway and SR 152. Under the 2030 No 

Project Alternative, the US 101 freeway links between San Jose and Gilroy would operate at LOS B or 

F with V/C varying from 0.64 to 1.17. Under the same alternative, the SR 152 freeway links would 

operate at LOS A with V/C varying from 0.46 to 0.51. 

With some automobile traffic diverted to the HST system, both links would operate at lower V/Cs, as 

shown in Table 3.1-2. For the Pacheco Pass alternatives, the V/C for this corridor would range from 

0.61 to 1.13 (LOS B to F) and for the Altamont Pass alternatives, the V/C for the corridor would 

range from 0.63 to 1.15 (LOS B to F). While the V/Cs of the US 101 links from San Jose to Gilroy and 

Gilroy to SR 152 would decrease by 4% in the Pacheco Pass alternatives, the decrease would be 

about 2% under the Altamont Pass alternatives. V/C ratios of the SR 152 link between US 101 and I5 decrease by 4% in the Pacheco Pass alternatives and increase by 0.6% in the Altamont Pass 

alternatives, as compared to the No Project alternative. The V/C ratios of the SR 152 link between I5 and SR 99 decrease by 6% in the Pacheco Pass alternatives and by 5% in the Altamont Pass 

alternatives. 

The station location options being considered in this segment are the existing San Jose Diridon 

Caltrain terminal and either the existing Morgan Hill or Gilroy Caltrain station. Traffic, transit, 

circulation, and parking conditions are similar for both Morgan Hill and Gilroy station options. 

San Jose 

In 2030 without an HST station, the cordon surrounding the station location option would operate at 

LOS A (V/C = 0.48). Even with the addition of HST-related traffic, the cordon surrounding the station 

area still would operate at LOS A (V/C ranging from 0.59 to 0.58 in the Pacheco and Altamont Pass 

alternatives, respectively). Even though the cordon as a whole operates at LOS A, a few roadways 

would operate at LOS E and F both under the No Project Alternative and with the HST system. 

Diridon Station provides service for the Capitol Corridor and Coast Starlight Amtrak routes, ACE, 

Caltrain, and SCVTA light rail. Transit lines would continue to operate at acceptable levels, and 

therefore the transit load factor or V/C is less than one. 

At the existing station, approximately 595 spaces are available for all day parking in surface lots 

adjacent to the station. With the addition of an HST station, increase in parking demand would 

range from 7,200 to 9,800 spaces in the case of the Pacheco Pass alternatives and from 6,500 to 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.1 Traffic, Transit, Circulation, and Parking 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.1-32

8,800 spaces in the case of the Altamont Pass alternatives. However, this demand would be offset 

by the provision of additional parking, and hence the V/C would be less than one. 

Morgan Hill 

In 2030 without an HST station, the cordon surrounding the station location option would operate at 

LOS A (V/C = 0.59). With the addition of HST, in the case of the Pacheco Pass alternatives, the V/C 

would be 0.65 (LOS B). 

Even though the cordon as a whole operates at acceptable LOS, westbound East Dunne Street would 

operate at LOS F both under the No Project Alternative and with the HST. 

The Morgan Hill station location option is the existing Morgan Hill Caltrain station. The passengers at 

the Caltrain station can transfer to SCVTA buses. Transit lines would continue to operate at 

acceptable levels, and therefore the transit load factor or V/C is less than one. 

At the Caltrain station, 486 parking spaces are currently available. With the addition of an HST 

station, increase in parking demand would range from 1,400 to 1,500 spaces in the case of the 

Pacheco Pass alternatives. This increased demand would be offset by additional parking that would 

be provided. Hence, V/C would be less than one. 

Gilroy 

In 2030 without an HST station, the cordon surrounding the potential station area would operate at 

LOS B (V/C = 0.67). With the addition of HST-related traffic, in the case of the Pacheco Pass 

alternatives, the V/C would be 0.74 (LOS C). Even though the cordon as a whole operates at 

acceptable LOS, segments of 10th Street would operate at LOS E or F both under the No Project 

Alternative and with the HST system. 

The Gilroy station location option is the existing Gilroy Caltrain station. Passengers at the existing 

Caltrain station can transfer to SCVTA buses, the San Benito County Transit Shuttle, Monterey-Salinas 

Transit buses, and Amtrak motor coaches connecting to the Capitol Corridor trains in San Jose or 

Oakland. Transit lines would continue to operate at acceptable levels, and therefore the transit load 

factor or V/C is less than one. 

At the Caltrain station, currently about 471 parking spaces are available. With the addition of an HST 

station, increase in parking demand would range from 2,800 to 3,800 spaces in the case of the 

Pacheco Pass alternatives. This increased demand would be offset by additional parking that would 

be provided. Hence, V/C would be less than one. 

East Bay to Central Valley Corridor

This corridor includes the areas from the City of Fremont east through Niles Canyon and into the 

cities of Pleasanton, Dublin, and Livermore. East of the City of Livermore, the HST Alignment 

Alternatives in this corridor continue through the Altamont Pass and into the Central Valley through 

the cities of Tracy and Manteca. 

The intercity highway links in this corridor are the I-580 and I-680 freeway links. Under the 2030 No 

Project Alternative, I-580 and I-680 freeway links would operate at LOS F with V/C varying from 1.22 

to 1.34. With some automobile traffic diverted to the HST system, the links would operate at slightly 

lower V/Cs, as shown in Table 3.1-2, The V/C would range from 1.15 to 1.34 (LOS F) under the 

Pacheco Pass alternatives and from 1.15 to 1.35 (LOS F) under the Altamont Pass alternatives. 

Under the Pacheco Pass alternatives, the V/Cs of the I-80 link between I-880 and I-5 decrease by 6 

to 8% while those under the Altamont Pass alternatives decrease by 6 to 10%. The V/Cs of the 

freeway link, I-580 between I-880 to Livermore, would decrease by about 3% in the Pacheco and 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.1 Traffic, Transit, Circulation, and Parking 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.1-33

Altamont Pass alternatives. While under the Pacheco Pass alternatives, the V/C of I-580 between 

Livermore and I-5 would decrease by 5%, the V/C under the Altamont Pass alternatives would 

decrease by 6%. Both sets of alternatives would cause a slight increase in traffic on I-680 between 

I-580 and US 101 due to traffic accessing East Bay HST stations. 

This corridor includes a station location option in Dublin (BART station), Pleasanton (Bernal/I-680), or 

Livermore (Livermore or Greenville). Transit and parking conditions are similar for all station location 

options. However, arterial traffic conditions would be worse at the Livermore station location 

options. The cordon surrounding the Livermore I-580 station location option would operate at LOS F 

both under the No Project Alternative and with the HST. 

The second HST station in this corridor would be at Tracy. The two station location options being 

considered are downtown Tracy and Tracy ACE close to Banta Road. Transit and parking conditions 

are similar for both locations. Traffic operations would be slightly worse under the downtown option 

because it is an urban area. 

Bernal/I-680, Pleasanton 

In 2030 without an HST station, the cordon surrounding the station location option would operate at 

LOS A (V/C = 0.53). With the addition of HST-related traffic, in the case of the Altamont Pass 

alternatives, the V/C would be 0.70 (LOS C). 

Currently, the transit routes serving the station area are Tracer’s Route A and Route D/E (commuter) 

along with Route 26, operated by SJRTD. Potential connections other than Tracer and SJRTD include 

ACE passenger rail service and proposed e-BART. Transit lines would continue to operate at 

acceptable levels, and hence the transit load factor or V/C is less than one. 

With the addition of an HST station, increase in parking demand would range from 6,900 to 9,100 

spaces in the case of the Altamont Pass alternatives. With the HST, these spaces would be provided 

in a parking garage located on the south side of the tracks, resulting in a V/C of less than one. 

Dublin/Pleasanton 

In 2030 in the absence of an HST station, the cordon surrounding the station location option would 

operate at LOS A (V/C = 0.44). Even with the addition of HST-related traffic, under the Altamont 

Pass alternatives, the cordon surrounding the station area would operate at LOS A (V/C = 0.46). 

Although the cordon as a whole operates at acceptable LOS, the operations on southbound 

Dougherty Road, north of I-580, and southbound Hacienda Drive, south of Dublin, would deteriorate 

from LOS D (V/C = 0.82) to LOS F (V/C = 1.08) and from LOS D (V/C = 0.89) to LOS F (V/C = 1.17), 

respectively. 

Even with the addition of the HST, the transit links are anticipated to operate at acceptable levels of 

service. Hence, transit lines would continue to operate at acceptable levels, and the transit load 

factor or V/C is less than one. 

The parking for BART would be consolidated on the north side of the station in a structure. With the 

addition of an HST station, increase in parking demand would range from 6,900 to 9,100 spaces in 

the case of the Altamont Pass alternatives. As part of the proposed project, additional spaces would 

be located on the south side of the HST station in a parking garage. The provision of these 

additional parking spaces would ensure that the V/C would be less than one. 

Livermore I-580 

In 2030 without an HST station, the cordon surrounding the station location option would operate at 

LOS F (V/C = 1.07). With the addition of HST-related traffic, the cordon surrounding the station area 

would operate at LOS F with a V/C of 1.38. Thus, the station cordon operates over capacity both 

under the No Project Alternative and with the HST system. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.1 Traffic, Transit, Circulation, and Parking 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.1-34

Even with the addition of the HST, the transit links are anticipated to operate at acceptable levels of 

service. Hence, transit lines would continue to operate at acceptable levels, and the transit load 

factor or V/C is less than one. 

With the addition of an HST station, increase in parking demand would range from 6,900 to 9,100 

spaces in the case of the Altamont Pass alternatives. As part of the proposed project, additional 

spaces would be provided in a parking garage. The provision of these additional parking spaces 

would ensure sufficient parking, and hence V/C would be less than one. 

Downtown Livermore 

In 2030 in the absence of an HST station, the cordon surrounding the station location option would 

operate at LOS D (V/C = 0.82). With the addition of HST-related traffic, the cordon surrounding the 

station area would operate at LOS F with V/C equal 1.10. 

Even with the addition of HST, the transit links are anticipated to operate at acceptable levels of 

service. Hence, transit lines would continue to operate at acceptable levels, and the transit load 

factor or V/C is less than one. 

With the addition of an HST station, increase in parking demand would range from 6,900 to 9,100 

spaces in the case of the Altamont Pass alternatives. As part of the proposed project, additional 

spaces would be provided in a parking garage. The provision of these additional parking spaces 

would ensure sufficient parking, and hence V/C would be less than one. 

Greenville I-580, Livermore 

In 2030 without an HST station, the cordon surrounding the station location option would operate at 

LOS A (V/C = 0.50). With the addition of HST-related traffic, the cordon surrounding the station area 

would operate at LOS C with V/C just less than 0.80. 

This HST station location option would be served by Tri-Valley buses. Connections with local and 

regional bus service would be available in the station parking area. Future transit services in the 

vicinity of the station location option could include BART with the proposed BART extension to 

Livermore. The City of Livermore General Plan advocates the extension of BART along the I-580 

median to Greenville Road (Objective CIR-3.1, Action A3) (City of Livermore General Plan: 2003–

2025, adopted February 9, 2004). BART has purchased land near the Greenville Road/I-580 

interchange for a possible terminal yard and/or station. Hence, transit lines would continue to 

operate at acceptable levels, and the transit load factor or V/C is less than one. 

With the addition of an HST station, increase in parking demand would range from 6,900 to 9,100 

spaces in the case of the Altamont Pass alternatives. As part of the proposed project, additional 

spaces would be provided in a parking garage. The provision of these additional parking spaces 

would ensure sufficient parking, and hence V/C would be less than one. 

Greenville UPRR, Livermore 

In 2030 without an HST station, the cordon surrounding the station location option would operate at 

LOS A (V/C = 0.44). With the addition of HST-related traffic, the cordon surrounding the station area 

would operate at LOS C (V/C = 0.71). Even though the cordon as a whole operates at acceptable 

LOS, the operations on southbound Greenville Road would deteriorate from LOS C (V/C = 0.79) to 

LOS F (V/C = 1.11). 

The station location option would be served by Tri-Valley buses. Connections with local and regional 

bus service would be available in the station parking area. Future transit services in the vicinity of 

this HST station location option could include BART with the proposed BART extension to Livermore. 

The City of Livermore General Plan advocates the extension of BART along the I-580 median to 

Greenville Road (Objective CIR-3.1, Action A3) (City of Livermore General Plan). BART has 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.1 Traffic, Transit, Circulation, and Parking 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.1-35

purchased land near the Greenville Road/I-580 interchange for a possible terminal yard and/or 

station. Hence, transit lines would continue to operate at acceptable levels, and the transit load 

factor or V/C is less than one. 

With the addition of an HST station, increase in parking demand would range from 6,900 to 9,100 

spaces in the case of the Altamont Pass alternatives. As part of the proposed project, additional 

spaces would be provided in a parking garage. The provision of these additional parking spaces 

would ensure sufficient parking, and hence V/C would be less than one. 

Tracy Downtown 

In 2030 without an HST station, the cordon surrounding the station location option would operate at 

LOS B (V/C = 0.64). With the addition of HST-related traffic, the cordon surrounding the station area 

would operate at LOS C (V/C 0.74). Although the cordon as a whole would operate at acceptable 

LOS, traffic operations on McArthur Road would deteriorate from LOS C to LOS E and F (V/C 0.97 to 

1.15). 

Currently, the transit routes serving the station location option include Tracer’s Route A and Route 

D/E (commuter) along with Route 26, operated by SJRTD. Potential connections other than Tracer 

and SJRTD include ACE passenger rail service and proposed e-BART. These transit lines would 

continue to operate at acceptable levels, and hence the transit load factor or V/C is less than one. 

With the addition of an HST station, increase in parking demand would range from 1,200 to 1,700 

spaces in the case of the Altamont Pass alternatives. As part of the proposed project, additional 

spaces would be provided in a parking garage on the south side of the tracks. The provision of these 

additional parking spaces would ensure sufficient parking, and hence V/C would be less than one. 

Tracy ACE 

In 2030 without an HST station, the cordon surrounding the area would operate at LOS A (V/C = 

0.02). Even with the addition of HST-related traffic, the cordon surrounding the station area would 

operate at LOS A (V/C 0.26). 

Currently, the closest transit connection available near the station location option is 2 miles away and 

is provided by local fixed-route bus service (Tracer). In the future, bus transfers to Tracer and 

intercity bus service operated by SJRTD would be available in addition to connections with ACE 

passenger rail service and proposed e-BART. These transit lines would continue to operate at 

acceptable levels, and hence the transit load factor or V/C is less than one. 

With the addition of an HST station, increase in parking demand would range from 1,200 to 1,700 

spaces in the case of the Altamont Pass alternatives. As part of the proposed project, additional 

spaces would be provided in a parking garage on the south side of the tracks. The provision of these 

additional parking spaces would ensure sufficient parking, and hence V/C would be less than one. 

Central Valley Corridor

The Central Valley corridor includes the areas of the Central Valley from the City of Stockton south to 

the northern areas of Madera County. 

The intercity highway links in this corridor are the I-5 and SR 99 freeway links. Under the 2030 No 

Project Alternative, the I-5 and SR 99 freeway links would operate at LOS D and F with V/C varying 

from 0.81 to 1.36. With some automobile traffic diverted to HST system, the freeway link SR 99 from 

Ripon to Merced would still operate at LOS F but that of I-5 from I-580 to SR 140 would operate at 

less congested levels (LOS B). For both the Pacheco and Altamont Pass alternatives, the V/C would 

range from 0.62 (LOS B) to 1.32 (LOS F). The V/C of the freeway link, I-5 from I-580 to SR 140, 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.1 Traffic, Transit, Circulation, and Parking 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.1-36

would decrease by about 20%. However the percentage decrease for SR 99 from Ripon to Merced 

would be about 3%. 

Two HST stations are being considered in this corridor—one at Modesto and another at Merced. The 

two locations being considered for the Modesto HST station are downtown Modesto or close to the 

East Briggsmore Road. Transit and parking conditions at the two station locations would be similar. 

Traffic conditions at downtown Modesto would be slightly worse because it is an urban location. 

The second HST station in this corridor would be at Merced. The two locations being considered are 

downtown Merced and Castle AFB. Merced downtown station cordon would operate at LOS F under 

both alternatives, showing congested travel conditions. In comparison, the cordon for the AFB 

station location would be operating at LOS B. Transit and parking impacts are similar for the options. 

Modesto Downtown 

In 2030 without an HST station, the cordon surrounding the area would operate at LOS D (V/C = 

0.90). With the addition of HST-related traffic, in both the Pacheco and Altamont Pass alternatives, 

the V/C would be 0.92 (LOS E). 

Currently, the station location option is well served by transit lines. With convenient access to the 

Downtown Transportation Center, connections can be made to StaRT, CAT, Ceres Dial-A-Ride, and 

ROTA. These transit lines would continue to operate at acceptable levels, and hence the transit load 

factor or V/C is less than one. 

With the addition of an HST station, increase in parking demand would range from 2,700 to 4,000 

spaces in the case of the Pacheco Pass alternatives and from 2,800 to 4,100 spaces in the case of the 

Altamont Pass alternatives. As part of the proposed project additional parking spaces would be 

provided in a structure. The parking structure would be located between M and L Streets, adjacent 

to the north side of the tracks. This additional parking would be sufficient to accommodate the 

increased demand, and therefore V/C would be less than one. 

Amtrak Briggsmore, Modesto 

In 2030 without an HST station, the cordon surrounding the station location option would operate at 

LOS D (V/C = 0.88). With the addition of HST-related traffic, under both the Pacheco Pass and 

Altamont Pass alternatives, the cordon surrounding the station area would operate at LOS D (V/C 

0.91). 

Currently, the location option is well served by transit lines. MAX Route 25 connects the Amtrak 

station with the Downtown Transportation Center. These transit lines would continue to operate at 

acceptable levels, and hence the transit load factor or V/C is less than one. 

With the addition of an HST station, increase in parking demand would range from 2,700 to 4,000 

spaces in the case of the Pacheco Pass alternatives and from 2,800 to 4,100 spaces in the case of the 

Altamont Pass alternatives. As part of the proposed project, additional parking spaces would be 

provided in a structure. This additional parking would be sufficient to accommodate the increased 

demand, and hence V/C would be less than one. 

Merced Downtown 

By 2030 even without an HST station, most of the roadways surrounding the station area would be 

over-taxed and operate above capacity. The cordon surrounding the station location option would 

operate at LOS F (V/C = 1.15). With the addition of HST-related traffic, under both the Pacheco 

Pass and Altamont Pass alternatives, the cordon surrounding the station area would operate at LOS 

F (V/C = 1.16). 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.1 Traffic, Transit, Circulation, and Parking 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.1-37

The station location option would be served by Merced County Transit buses. These would continue 

to operate at acceptable levels, and hence the transit load factor or V/C is less than one. 

With the addition of an HST station, increase in parking demand would range from 1,000 to 1,300 

spaces in the case of the Pacheco Pass alternatives and from 1,200 to 1,600 spaces in the case of the 

Altamont Pass alternatives. The proposed station would include additional parking spaces 

surrounding the station building and in a surface lot located on the north side of 15th Street between 

Canal and M Streets. This additional parking would be sufficient to accommodate the increased 

demand, and hence V/C would be less than one. 

Castle AFB, Merced 

By 2030, in the absence of the proposed project, the cordon surrounding the station location option 

would operate at LOS B (V/C = 0.63). With the addition of HST-related traffic, under both the 

Pacheco Pass and Altamont Pass alternatives, the cordon surrounding the station area would 

operate at LOS B (V/C 0.65). 

The proposed station would be served by Merced Area Regional Transit System buses. These would 

continue to operate at acceptable levels, and hence the transit load factor or V/C is less than one. 

With the addition of an HST station, increase in parking demand would range from 1,000 to 1,300 

spaces in the case of the Pacheco Pass alternatives and from 1,200 to 1,600 spaces in the case of the 

Altamont Pass alternatives. The proposed station would include additional parking spaces to meet 

this demand in a surface lot. This additional parking would be sufficient to accommodate the 

increased demand, and hence V/C would be less than one. 

3.1.4 Role of Design Practices in Avoiding and Minimizing Effects 

Currently, regional planning agencies and the counties and cities in the regions have considerable 

flexibility to deal with identified traffic, transit, and parking impacts. The Authority would expect to 

participate in developing potential construction and operational mitigation measures in consultation with 

state, federal, regional, and local governments and affected transit agencies during project-level reviews. 

Potential mitigation measures could be developed to improve access to the proposed stations. These 

improvements would be based on the forecast capacity deficiencies identified for the No Project 

Alternative and HST station options and possibly could employ some of the following approaches. 

• Transportation System Management (TSM)/Signal Optimization (including retiming, rephrasing, 

and signal optimization); other measures may include turn prohibitions, use of one-way streets, 

and traffic diversion to alternate routes. 

• Local spot widening of curves that allows for geometric improvements without significant rightof-way acquisition. 

• Major intersection improvements (full lane widening), which require significant right-of-way. 

• Acquisition to accommodate additional left-turn and/or through lanes. 

• Consultation and coordination with public transit services to encourage the provision of adequate 

bus feeder routes to serve proposed station areas in order to mitigate potential transit impacts. 

• Provision of additional parking facilities at HST stations with excess parking demand. 

3.1.5 Mitigation Strategies and CEQA Significance Effects 

Based on the analysis above, and considering the design practices described in Section 3.1.4, each of the 

HST Alignment Alternatives would have significant impacts related to traffic and transportation. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.1 Traffic, Transit, Circulation, and Parking 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.1-38

The CEQA significance criteria for traffic are explained in Section 3.1.1C, CEQA Significance Criteria. 

Around station location option areas, an increase in traffic and congestion is expected with the proposed 

HST. As explained in Section 3.1.3, Environmental Consequences, with the HST, cordon traffic operations 

at the following stations may constitute an impact: Transbay Transit Center, Millbrae, Livermore 

Downtown and I-580, Modesto Downtown, Briggsmore, and Merced Downtown. In these cases, traffic 

cordon conditions would deteriorate from LOS D to LOS E or F in four cases or from LOS E or F to a 

worse LOS E or F in three cases. Traffic effects of all other station location options would not constitute 

an impact. In some cases, however, even though the cordon itself would be operating at acceptable 

LOS, individual roadway segments would operate at congested conditions under the No Project 

Alternative and/or with the HST. 

Except at the downtown San Francisco Transbay Transit Center station location option, transit services 

serving the proposed station areas would have enough capacity to meet the transit demand, and hence 

the impact attributable to additional HST traffic would be low. At the San Francisco station, transit lines 

would be operating above capacity during peak hours under the No Project Alternative. The additional 

HST traffic would deteriorate the conditions further. Hence, under both scenarios there would be impacts 

on transit. Mitigation strategies mentioned above (such as improving bus service near the location) could 

be applied to reduce this impact. 

With the additional traffic accessing the stations with the HST system, it is anticipated that parking will be 

added at the stations that is sufficient to meet demand, and the impacts on parking at all stations would 

remain at V/C less than 1, except in downtown San Francisco, where private parking operators are 

expected to provide sufficient parking, albeit at $25 per day. Thus, parking impacts would be less than 

significant at the HST stations. 

No substantial interference with goods movement is anticipated, and connectivity with transit systems will 

be enhanced rather than suffer interference. 

Program-level mitigation strategies would be further refined, and specific measures would be considered 

during project-level environmental reviews where impacts are found to be significant at the project level. 

Potential mitigation strategies to be considered during project-level environmental reviews would include 

the following, listed below by regional and local applications. 

A. REGIONAL STRATEGIES: 

• Coordination with regional transportation (highway and transit) planning (e.g., regional 

transportation plans, congestion management plans, freeway deficiency plans, etc.). 

• Intelligent Transportation Systems Strategies (ITS). 

B. LOCAL STRATEGIES: 

• Provide additional parking. 

• Consider offsite parking with shuttles. 

• Share parking strategies. 

• Implement parking permit plans for neighborhoods. 

• Employ parking and curbside use restrictions. 

• Develop and implement a construction phasing and traffic management plan. 

• Widen roadways. 

• Install new traffic signals. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.1 Traffic, Transit, Circulation, and Parking 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.1-39

• Improve capacity of local streets with upgrades in geometrics, such as providing standard 

roadway lane widths, traffic controls, bicycle lanes, shoulders, and sidewalks 

• Install modifications at intersections, such as signalization and/or capacity improvements 

(widening for additional left-turn and/or through lanes) 

• Coordinate and optimize signals (including retiming and rephrasing) 

• Designate one-way street patterns near some station locations 

• Implement turn prohibitions 

• Use one-way streets and traffic diversion to alternate routes 

• Work with public transportation providers to coordinate services and to increase service and/or 

add routes, as necessary, to serve the HST station areas. 

• Minimize closure of any proximate freight or passenger rail line or highway facility during 

construction. 

The above mitigation strategies would be refined and applied at the project level and are expected to 

substantially avoid or lessen impacts around station areas to a less-than-significant level in most 

circumstances. Planning multi-modal stations, coordinating with transit services, providing accessible 

locations and street improvements, and encouraging transit-oriented development in station areas would 

help to ease traffic constraints in station areas. At the project level, it is expected that for various HST 

station projects, impacts would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level, but it is possible that for 

some stations impacts would not be mitigated to the less-than-significant level. Sufficient information is 

not available at this programmatic level to conclude with certainty that the above mitigation strategies 

would reduce impacts around stations to a less-than-significant level in all circumstances. This document 

therefore concludes that traffic impacts around station areas may be significant, even with the application 

of mitigation strategies. Additional environmental assessment will allow a more precise evaluation in the 

second-tier, project-level environmental analyses. The co-lead agencies will work closely with local 

government agencies at the project level to implement mitigation strategies. 

3.1.6 Subsequent Analysis 

Subsequent multimodal access and circulation studies could be conducted at proposed station location 

options along proposed alignments as plans for alignments, stations, and operations are refined. 

Additional environmental analysis would be required in conjunction with these studies to ascertain the 

exact locations of potential project-generated traffic impacts and potential parking demand impacts and 

the potential effects on existing bus and rail transit ridership. Station area circulation studies would be 

expected as part of project-level environmental documentation. 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.2-1

3.2 Travel Conditions 

This section addresses the existing and future potential for travel conditions to change related to the No 

Project and HST alternatives.1

 Automobile transportation and air transportation currently carry more than 

99% of intercity trips and are therefore the focus of this analysis, together with the HST mode. For this 

analysis, travel conditions are defined as the experience, quality, sustainability, safety, reliability, and cost 

of intercity travel in the study region and state. Travel factors were developed based on the purpose and 

need (Chapter 1) for the proposed HST system and are used to evaluate the general impact of the No 

Project Alternative and the HST alternatives on the transportation system. 

In contrast to other sections in this chapter, this section broadly compares the HST system to other 

modes of travel, rather than focusing on comparison of alignment alternatives. HST Alignment 

Alternatives and Network Alternatives are referred to collectively as HST alternatives.

2 

3.2.1 Methods of Evaluation 

The overall method used to evaluate travel conditions is described below. To evaluate the relative 

differences in travel conditions that would result from the No Project or HST alternatives, five travel 

factors were considered that relate directly to the purpose and need and the goals and objectives 

defined in Chapter 1. These factors are described below. 

• Travel Time: Travel time is the total time required to complete a journey. With the exception of 

the automobile, intercity transportation options require multiple modes to complete a trip. For 

example, an air trip is not just the time spent in the air (the line-haul portion of the trip) but also 

includes the time required to travel to the airport, check in, pass through security, board the 

plane, and travel to the final destination. The total travel time of a mode also depends on its 

reliability. If a mode is unreliable, a traveler must allow more time to complete a trip, effectively 

lengthening the total travel time.

• Reliability: Reliability is the delivery of predictable and consistent travel times and is a key 

factor in attracting passengers to use a particular mode of travel. Travel time and reliability 

directly affect productivity because they determine the ease and speed with which workers and 

products arrive at their destinations. Greater travel demand on capacity-constrained facilities 

results in further congestion and is one of the primary reasons for longer travel times. Reliability 

is primarily a function of unexpected delays, which can be caused by many factors, including 

traffic congestion, accidents, mechanical breakdowns, roadwork, and inclement weather. 

• Safety: Projected growth in the movement of people and goods in California by road and air 

underscores the need for improved travel safety. National and statewide statistics indicate that 

the rate of fatality or serious injury by private motor vehicle is increasing, primarily because more 

people are traveling by this mode. Nationally, over the last 10 years, accident and injury rates 

have remained fairly constant for commercial airline travel, which remains a safe mode compared 

to the private automobile. 

• Connectivity (Modal): Connections between modes of transportation are an element in the 

development and operation of a successful total transportation system. The ability to transfer 

easily between modes and the frequency of service are additional key factors that can determine 

a traveler’s modal choice. Statewide, connections between airports and the extensive regional 

_____________________ 

1

 See Section 3.0, Introduction, for an explanation of how this section fits together with the HST Network Alternatives presented in 

Chapter 7, as well as for an overview of the information presented in the other chapters. 

2

 Representative Pacheco Pass and Altamont Pass network alternatives are used for evaluation in this section. See Chapter 2 for a 

description of network alternatives. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.2 Travel Conditions 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.2-2

urban and commuter transit systems are limited. Under existing conditions and the No Project 

Alternative, modal connections at airports are limited, and connections and services are 

fragmented and not provided as an integrated system with coordinated fares, schedules, and 

amenities. With the exception of the new BART extension to SFO and the Metrolink connection 

to Burbank Airport, other airports do not have direct rail connections to city centers, other transit 

systems, or the region. Airport transit connections can be cumbersome, often requiring multiple 

transfers and long waiting times; are not well advertised to potential passengers; and lack 

coordinated fares and schedules. 

• Connectivity (Geographic):Connecting the San Francisco Bay Area to other parts of northern 

California, the Central Valley, and southern urban areas of the state with an additional 

transportation system could significantly improve statewide mobility. In addition, connecting the 

San Francisco Bay Area with the cities and communities of the Central Valley could yield other 

potential benefits. Due to poor connectivity, limited services, and weather impacts, travel options 

to and from Central Valley cities are limited, travel times are long, and the potential for delay is 

high. 

• Cost: Direct, passenger-borne costs are another key factor in passenger travel choice. Most 

travel demand studies have found that travel costs are highly variable, depending on the type of 

traveler and the purpose of travel. Business travelers may be willing to pay high fares for urgent 

needs, but leisure travelers may constrain themselves to the lowest fare possible. In some cases, 

travelers are also willing to pay a premium for a reliable, comfortable, and safe journey. 

The five travel factors are summarized in Table 3.2-1. These travel factors are used to evaluate the 

relative difference between alternatives both qualitatively and quantitatively. The method by which 

the travel factors have been applied to the alternatives is summarized in Table 3.2-2. Each of the 

travel factors is described in greater detail as they are applied in the potential environmental 

consequences of travel conditions discussion. 

In general, the No Project Alternative would include the same intercity travel modes that are 

available under existing conditions, which are the automobile, airplane, intercity bus, and 

conventional rail. This Program EIR/EIS is to broadly assess the highest reasonably foreseeable 

potential level of impact. Therefore, the high ridership forecasts for the HST (117 million trips) are 

used to describe the operations and required facilities for the proposed alternatives. However, in a 

few areas where the high ridership forecast produced the lowest impacts or highest benefit, analysis 

of conditions based on the base case HST forecast (88 million trips) is also included. The high 

ridership forecast and the base case include 31 and 22 million long-distance commute trips, 

respectively. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.2 Travel Conditions 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.2-3

Table 3.2-1 

Relation of Travel Factors and Purpose and Need/Objectives 

Travel Factors 

Connectivity 

Travel 

Time Reliability Safety 

Passenger 

Cost 

Project Purpose 

Improve intercity travel 

experience 

X X X X 

Maximize intermodal 

transportation opportunities 

X X 

Meet future intercity travel 

demand 

X X 

Increase efficiency of intercity 

transportation system 

X X 

Maximize use of existing 

transportation corridors 

X X 

Develop a practical and 

feasible transportation system 

by 2020 and in phases 

X X 

Provide a sustainable reduction 

in travel time 

 X 

Project Need 

Limited modal connections X X 

Future growth in travel 

demand 

 

Capacity constraints X 

Unreliability of travel X X 

Project Goals and Objectives 

Maximize mobility X X 

Minimize travel times X 

Minimize environmental 

impacts 

 

Maximize system safety X X 

Maximize reliability X 

X = Directly applies. 

Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff 2003. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.2 Travel Conditions 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.2-4

Table 3.2-2 

Application of Transportation Factors to Alternatives 

Typology Description Measurement 

Travel Time Total door-to-door travel time Total travel time including access and in-vehicle times 

Reliability Ability and perception to arrive at 

the destination on-time 

Accidents 

Inclement weather 

Transportation-related construction 

Volume variation 

Special events 

Traffic control devices and procedures 

Base capacity 

Vehicle availability 

Safety Loss of life or injury Comparison of safety performance characteristics by mode 

(operator, vehicle, and environment) 

Connectivity Transportation options that 

connect to other systems and 

destinations 

Modal: Number of intermodal connections and options, and 

frequency of service provided by each alternative 

Geographic: Connectivity between regions by mode 

Passenger cost One-way travel costs Total costs, including fares and other costs, for intercity 

travel by mode 

Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff 2003. 

3.2.2 Affected Environment 

A. STUDY AREA DEFINED 

This program-level analysis of travel conditions and potential impacts does not measure the specific 

potential impact on individual transportation facilities (e.g., a transit line, highway, or airport). 

Rather, travel conditions have been evaluated for the state, with a focus on the study region. 

Specific examples of representative travel conditions in a corridor or for a specific highway, airport, or 

rail facility are identified where possible. 

B. GENERAL DISCUSSION OF TRAVEL CONDITIONS 

For travel conditions, the affected environment is California’s intercity travel network, which consists 

of three main components: highways, airports, and rail. Of these, automobiles and air transportation 

carry more than 99% of intercity trips and are therefore the focus of this section. Congestion in the 

affected environment is a serious concern, as shown in Figure 3.2-1. According to the Texas 

Transportation Institute, the urban areas of San Francisco and Los Angeles experience some of the 

most severe highway congestion and travel delays in the country (Shrank and Lomax 2002). Recent 

research by the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California, Berkeley, indicates 

that California airports generally experience the highest average air travel delays in the nation 

(Hansen et al. 2002). Although the main contributors to this congestion are local and commuter 

highway trips and transcontinental and international flights (at least at major airports such as SFO 

and LAX), intercity trips compete for the limited capacity on these overburdened facilities. 

The highway system is congested near and around urban centers (e.g., San Francisco, Oakland, San 

Jose) and in rural and suburban communities (e.g., Central Valley) during both the morning and 

evening peak hours. According to the MTC, seven out of ten of the most congested highway corridors 

in the Bay Area (including segments of I-880, I-580, and US-101) are key intercity routes in the Bay 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Figure 3.2-1

Nationwide Highway Congestion

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.2 Travel Conditions 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.2-5

Area to Merced region (Figure 3.2-2). Similarly, according to the San Joaquin Council of 

Governments, several major routes that traverse the Central Valley (I-5, I-205, I-580, SR 120, SR 99) 

are critical intercity links for passengers and goods traveling between northern and southern 

California. Section 3.1, Traffic, Transit, Circulation, and Parking, notes that several of these routes 

are operating during the peak periods at or near congested levels of operations. In fact, I-5 and SR 

99 (key intercity routes assessed in this analysis) are designated by Caltrans as “high emphasis focus 

routes” of critical importance to the movement of goods in California. 

California’s aviation system provides for intercity, domestic, and international travel. The aviation 

system is also a significant economic generator that fuels the state’s economy. According to the 

FHWA, in 2002 California’s airports contributed to about 9% of the state’s employment and total 

economic output (Federal Highway Administration 2003). According to Caltrans, in 2002 about 

159 million passengers in California traveled by air, or about 12% of the national total. Seven 

California airports are ranked in the top 50 U.S. primary/commercial service airports. As shown in 

Table 3.2-3, three of these airports are located in the study region. 

Table 3.2-3 

California Airport National Rankings (2002) 

Airport U.S. Ranking Region 

Los Angeles (LAX) 3 Bakersfield to Los Angeles and Los Angeles to San 

Diego (via Inland Empire and Orange County) 

San Francisco (SFO) 8 Bay Area to Central Valley 

San Diego (SAN) 30 Los Angeles to San Diego (via Inland Empire and 

Orange County) 

San Jose (SJC) 34 Bay Area to Central Valley 

Oakland (OAK) 37 Bay Area to Central Valley 

Sacramento (SMF) 44 Sacramento to Bakersfield 

John Wayne/Orange County (SNA) 45 Los Angeles to San Diego via Orange County 

Source: Aviation in California Fact Sheet, California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics, 2002. 

The National Center of Excellence for Aviation Operations and Research predicted that demand at 

California airports, which dropped by as much as 33% after the September 11, 2001, terrorist 

attacks, will recover to 2000 levels in 2002 or 2003 or shortly thereafter. As a result, the seven 

major airports in Table 3.2-3 currently operating at or near capacity are all planning major 

improvements to accommodate existing and future projected demand. In 2000, almost 25% of all 

flight arrivals were delayed for 9 minutes or more, a number significantly higher than the national 

average (Hansen et al. 2002). 

Congested airways are one source of passenger delay for intercity trips; congested highways are 

another. According to the California Transportation Commission, California’s major airports suffer 

from poor ground access and severe congestion, which directly impacts international trade (California 

Transportation Commission 2000). As shown in Section 3.1, Traffic, Transit, Circulation, and Parking, 

many of the highway segments and primary airport access routes to the study region airports have a 

LOS of E and F. Level of service describes the condition of traffic flow, ranging from excellent 

conditions at LOS A to overloaded conditions at LOS F. LOS D is typically recognized as an 

acceptable service level in urban areas. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.2 Travel Conditions 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.2-6

3.2.3 Environmental Consequences 

A. NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE 

The No Project Alternative includes programmed and funded transportation improvements to the 

existing transportation system that will be implemented and operational by 2030. The No Project 

Alternative involves increased intercity travel demand and the implementation of new infrastructure. 

Improvements (programmed and funded) focus on existing modes; therefore, the same modes of 

intercity transport will continue to be available. The programmed or funded transportation 

improvements assumed to be in operation by 2030 are not major systemwide capacity improvements 

(e.g., major new highway construction or widening, or additional runways) and will not result in a 

general improvement or stabilization of existing highway or air travel conditions across the study 

region. Connectivity is not expected to improve with the No Project Alternative because few major 

intermodal terminals are expected to be built over the next 20 years. 

As described in Section 3.1, Traffic, Transit, Circulation, and Parking, existing facilities are operating 

at congested levels of service at many locations, and traffic conditions are projected to deteriorate 

further under the No Project Alternative. Of the 18 intercity highway locations analyzed in Section 

3.1, more than half are operating during the peak period at LOS D or a volume-to-capacity (V/C) 

ratio more than 0.80 under existing conditions—with two of the locations at LOS F (V/C over 1.0). 

These conditions are expected to deteriorate further under the No Project Alternative for 2030. On 

average, across the 18 locations evaluated in the study region, the V/C ratios are estimated to 

deteriorate by more than 35% and have substantially more LOS F segments (11 of the 18 locations) 

under the No Project Alternative. Capacity in the No Project Alternative is insufficient to 

accommodate the projected growth in highway travel in the study region, including both the San 

Francisco Bay Area and the emerging urban areas in the Central Valley. Consequently, there would 

be no sustainable capacity improvement to the transportation system. 

Although intercity travel is only a small percentage of all highway trips, it must compete for limited 

capacity on already congested infrastructure, which will become more congested by 2030. For 

instance, according to MTC, between years 2000 and 2020 in the Bay Area, total vehicles per 

household will increase by 5%, and average vehicle miles traveled per weekday will increase by 

about 30%, and even more by 2030. This projection is representative of conditions throughout the 

state (Metropolitan Transportation Commission 2003). In the Central Valley, the San Joaquin Council 

of Governments estimates that the percentage of time vehicles are delayed relative to the total travel 

time will increase in 2025, and that the percentage of miles traveled at congested levels of service 

(LOS E or F) will increase from 1.25% in 1999 to more than 6% in 2025—a more than six-fold 

increase (San Joaquin Council of Governments 2002). In most cases, these conditions could become 

manifest in deteriorating levels of service on highway segments and local streets or extended peakperiod congestion on links that are already operating at near or total breakdown conditions. In many 

instances, the morning peak period could extend to 4 hours. 

According to the California Aviation System Plan, almost 173 million passengers enplaned and 

deplaned in California in 1999, a number that is expected to more than double by 2020 (California 

Department of Transportation 2001). Under the No Project Alternative, no additional runways or 

other major capacity expansion projects would be implemented by 2030. Many of the airports in the 

study region that are currently at or near capacity could become severely congested under the No 

Project Alternative. Capacity constraints are likely to result in significant future aircraft delays, 

particularly at California’s three largest airports. SFO has “one of the worst flight delay records of 

major U.S. airports—only 64% of SFO flights were on time during 1998” (San Francisco International 

Airport 2003). According to SFO, within 10 years the three Bay Area airports will not have the 

sufficient capacity to meet regional air traffic demand even on a good weather day. The projected 

delays at heavily used airports and forecasted highway congestion would continue to delay travel, 

negatively affecting the California economy and quality of life. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Figure 3.2-2

Bay Area Locations of Worst Congestion 

(as of 2001)

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.2 Travel Conditions 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.2-7

Given these travel trends, overall travel safety is also expected to worsen. As VMT continues to rise 

over the next 20 years under the No Project Alternative, the accident rate will not change 

appreciably, but the net number of accidents, injuries, and fatalities could increase, particularly for 

highway-based trips. As evidence of this trend, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

reported that between 1998 and 2001 fatalities on California’s roadways increased by an average 4% 

annually (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 2001). 

Travel costs are also expected to rise because of capacity constraints. Regions could attempt to 

control demand through congestion pricing for both the auto and air modes. This approach could 

result in more congestion-priced toll roads like SR-91 in Orange and Riverside Counties, and peakperiod landing fees for airports statewide. Both of these costs would be passed along to the 

consumer either directly in tolls or indirectly in ticketed fares. 

As summarized in Table 3.2-4, the No Project Alternative would result in either a deteriorated level of 

service or no change compared to existing conditions. 

Table 3.2-4 

Existing Conditions Compared to No Project Alternative 

No Project Alternative (2030) 

Travel Factor 

Change from Existing 

Conditions Comment 

Travel Time Deteriorate Increased congestion could result in further delays. 

Reliability Deteriorate Increased congestion and no change in modal options or 

characteristics could result in greater unreliability. 

Safety Deteriorate No change in modal options would maintain existing 

fatality and injury rates; however, increased demand 

could result in greater number of fatalities. 

Connectivity None No additional intercity intermodal connections or options, 

or increased frequencies will be available. 

Passenger Cost Deteriorate Airfares are anticipated to increase beyond their current 

fare structures. 

There are no travel-time benefits associated with the No Project Alternative because there are no 

significant improvements to capacity or modal options. The No Project Alternative would likely result 

in longer travel times in all cases as compared to existing conditions, and these increases would 

range between 18 and 64 minutes for the representative city pairs. 

Reliability under the No Project Alternative is likely to be lower than under the HST alternatives for 

the following reasons. 

• The No Project Alternative depends heavily on the automobile, which has been shown to have 

the worst reliability of the three modes. 

• Existing congestion and reliability problems continue because the No Project Alternative provides 

no new highway or airport base capacity. 

• Greater highway and aviation congestion and more reliability problems accrue because the No 

Project Alternative absorbs an increasing demand for travel with little increase in base capacity. 

Although the rate of injury or fatality is not expected to increase under the No Project Alternative, the 

increase in highway travel would be expected to cause the number of injuries and fatalities to 

increase as compared to existing conditions. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.2 Travel Conditions 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.2-8

Under the No Project Alternative, there would be no net improvement to the connectivity options in 

the state over the existing conditions. There would no introduction of new modes, no new 

intermodal terminals or connections, and no improvements in air transportation frequencies. 

There is little to no sustainable capacity in the No Project Alternative. The future transportation 

infrastructure is severely constrained by the limited number of capacity improvements funded or 

programmed for 2020. Improvements associated with the No Project Alternative are generally to 

existing interchanges versus line capacity expansion or improvement projects. The highway system’s 

sustainable capacity would require additional infrastructure to accommodate any growth in demand. 

To accommodate the theoretical system capacity of 31,500 passengers per hour, the highway system 

would require at least three additional lanes in each direction and the capacity of airports would also 

have to be significantly expanded. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would not accommodate the 

theoretical demand and would require extensive infrastructure expansion to have sustainable 

capacity. 

With the No Project Alternative, auto passenger costs are considerably lower for short- and midrange trips than airfares for short haul routes, such as Los Angeles to San Diego, Los Angeles to 

Fresno, or Sacramento to San Jose. For long-range trips, such as Los Angeles to San Francisco or 

Burbank to San Jose, the automobile remains competitive because of the access and egress costs 

associated with air travel. 

B. HIGH-SPEED TRAIN ALTERNATIVES 

This section presents expected travel conditions for the HST alternatives and compares relative 

differences between No Project and the HST. This section is organized by the five travel factors 

identified earlier. Implementation of the HST system would introduce a new mode to the California 

intercity transportation system. This new mode would result in major differences in expected travel 

conditions that would be similar for all the HST alternatives being considered in the study region. 

Some differences are noted that would occur, depending on the choice of network alternative. Each 

travel factor begins with a summary of the specific methods used to define and evaluate the effect of 

the HST system, followed by an evaluation of potential effects.

Travel Time

Travel time is a key travel factor that determines the attractiveness of a particular mode of travel to 

passengers. Travel time is also an important economic factor that directly affects productivity (travel 

time for workers and products to get to their destination). For the purpose of this analysis, improved 

travel time is a benefit to the traveler because it can improve the intercity travel experience. Travel 

time for this analysis was measured as the total (door-to-door) travel time for the example city pairs 

presented in Chapter 1. 

Automobile Mode Characteristics 

Travel time in an automobile largely depends on three factors: distance traveled, roadway design 

speed (and associated speed limit), and congestion levels. The design of a roadway dictates the time 

that will be required to travel between two destinations. The time of day and associated congestion 

also plays a role in how long a trip will take. For this analysis, it is assumed that the top speed of the 

automobile is 70 mph (113 kph). 

Automobile travel times are based on driving times between the representative city pair origins and 

destinations (Table 3.2-5). The travel time for existing conditions is based on the California HighSpeed Rail Statewide Forecasting model, which was validated using observed traffic counts in the 

year 2000. The 2030 No Project travel times were estimated using the same forecasting model, with 

2030 land use and financially constrained networks from each of the four largest metropolitan 

transportation organizations (MPOs) in the state (San Francisco Metropolitan Transportation 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.2 Travel Conditions 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.2-9

Commission, Southern California Association of Governments, Sacramento Area Council of 

Governments, and the San Diego Association of Governments) and Caltrans (for all other areas of the 

state). The 2030 forecast assumptions and models used for the HST alternatives included a 50% 

increase in air and auto costs, representing the high ridership forecasts. As a result, the auto travel 

times for the HST alternatives were forecast to be 4–6% shorter because of the increased auto costs 

and the diversion of highway trips to the HST system (Cambridge Systematics 2007). 

Table 3.2-5 

Total Door-to-Door Peak Automobile Travel Times (Hours:Minutes) 

City Pairs 

Existing 

Conditions 

(2000)a

2030 Automobile Total Doorto-Door Travel Timesb

No Project HST 

Los Angeles downtown to San Francisco downtown 6:28 6:50 6:32 

Fresno downtown to Los Angeles downtown 3:32 3:41 3:38 

Los Angeles downtown to San Diego downtown 2:37 2:41 2:39 

Burbank (airport) to San Jose downtown 5:31 5:54 5:40 

Sacramento downtown to San Jose downtown 2:29 2:32 2:24 a

 Metropolitan Transportation Commission and California High Speed Rail Authority High-Speed Rail Ridership and 

Revenue Forecasting Study, prepared by Cambridge Systematics 2007. b

 2030 No Project was estimated as the congested travel time for peak conditions by assigning the 2030 No Project 

trip table generated by the California High-Speed Rail Statewide Forecasting model to the statewide highway 

network for 2030, which is a financially constrained future year network. 

Air Mode Characteristics 

Air travel is the fastest line-haul mode at 530 mph (853 kph) maximum cruising speed. However, a 

significant portion of a passenger’s trip is spent accessing the airport, passing through one or more 

security checkpoints, boarding and alighting from the aircraft, and egress travel from the airport. 

The components of a door-to-door air trip include the components listed below. 

• Access time: time spent driving to the airport. 

• Terminal time: time spent getting through the airport terminal. 

• Wait time: time spent waiting at the gate for the aircraft to leave. 

• Line-haul time: time spent on the aircraft. 

• Arrival time: time spent getting to the final destination. 

It is assumed that all air trips would require travel on the regional highway system with the exception 

of San Francisco, where some passengers could use the newly opened BART to SFO rail link. Also, 

passengers in the Los Angeles area could use a Metrolink connection to Burbank. 

Total air travel times are summarized in Table 3.2-6. As shown, No Project travel times would 

increase between 0 and 10 minutes compared to existing conditions, depending on city pairs.3

 These 

changes are the result of increases in line-haul travel time that were observed between 2000 and 

2005 and carried forward to 2030. It is estimated that air travel times would not change with the 

_____________________ 

3 This assumption is consistent with the high-end revenue and ridership assumptions for the Bay Area/California High-Speed Rail 

Ridership and Revenue Forecasting Study, Cambridge Systematics 2007. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.2 Travel Conditions 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.2-10

HST system compared to No Project because the diversion of trips to HST does not significantly 

reduce airside congestion levels, and all other factors (arrival, terminal, and departure times) would 

remain constant. Although there would be an improvement of intercity highway travel times, this 

improvement is not meaningful for access trips to and from the airports. 

Table 3.2-6 

Total Door-to-Door Peak Air Travel Time (Hours:Minutes) 

City Pairs Airports 

Existing 

Conditions 

(1999) 

2030 Air Mode Total Door-toDoor Travel Times 

No Project 

Alternativea HST 

Los Angeles downtown to 

San Francisco downtown 

LAX, LGB, BUR, SNA, 

ONT, SFO, OAK, SJC 

3:30 3:38 3:38 

Fresno downtown to Los 

Angeles downtown 

FAT, SNA, ONT, LAX, 

LGB, BUR 

3:17 3:24 3:24 

Los Angeles downtown to 

San Diego downtown 

LAX, LGB, BUR, SNA, 

ONT, SAN 

2:51 3:01 3:01 

Burbank (Airport) to San 

Jose downtown 

BUR and SJC 2:46 2:43 2:43 

Sacramento downtown to 

San Jose downtown 

SMF and SJC 3:33 3:33 3:33 

a Total travel time for air is unaffected by the high-speed rail service or changing demand in air trips. 

Source: Cambridge Systematics 2007. 

High-Speed Train Mode Characteristics 

With a maximum operating speed of 220 mph (354 kph), the HST is slower in line-haul speed than 

an airplane but considerably faster than an automobile. However, for most intercity trips within 

California, the quick arrival, terminal, and departure times make the overall HST travel time 

competitive with that of air travel. The HST would also connect closer city pairs, those less than 

150 mi (241 km) apart, and for those trips would compete strongly with the automobile. For 

example, HST travel between Los Angeles and Bakersfield or Sacramento and Modesto would likely 

be faster than air transportation as well as automobile travel. 

In Europe and the United States, rail travel time improvements have shifted travel demand from air 

to rail travel. Within a decade of its inauguration, France’s TGV Sud-Est succeeded in capturing more 

than 90% of the travel market between Paris and Lyon (Meunier 2002). Amtrak’s Acela and regional 

trains have 50% of the total air-rail market between New York and Washington. In Germany, recent 

passenger rail improvements between Frankfurt and Cologne were undertaken with the purpose of 

shifting air trips from congested airports where capacity was constrained and could not be expanded 

to high-speed rail that could more quickly serve the same markets. This same principle could apply 

to the major airports in California, including San Francisco and Los Angeles. The air operation timeslots released by substituting HST for local air service at these two airports could provide more 

opportunities for international and interstate flights. 

HST would also provide direct connections to several airports. This connectivity, combined with the 

line-haul speed of the HST, could result in faster total travel times for air travelers who use a 

combination of air and HST to reach their final destination. For example, passengers arriving at San 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.2 Travel Conditions 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.2-11

Francisco could transfer to the HST and travel to Merced, and this connection could be competitive 

with or possibly faster than connecting to another flight, driving, or taking a bus or shuttle4

. 

The train in this instance may be quicker for two reasons. First, trains may be boarded swiftly, often 

in less than 2 minutes because of the number of doors and ability to accommodate extra passengers. 

In contrast, boarding an airplane must be highly controlled for security and typically takes place 

through one door (or at most two doors), a process that can take up to half an hour. Second, 

current airline boarding practice requires passengers to be present at the gate at least 60 minutes 

before the scheduled departure time.

Another key difference between HST and air travel is the percentage of total travel time spent during 

the line haul. On a train, this proportion of time is quite high, and can be used for work, pleasure, or 

relaxation. For example, passengers traveling by HST between any of the below city pairs would be 

able to use their laptop computers or any number of personal audio, video, or game devices for 

approximately 70% of the total travel time, while passengers traveling by air would be able to use 

these devices for just 30% of their trip.5

Total travel times are summarized in Table 3.2-7. While these travel times are from downtown to 

downtown where HST has a distinct advantage over air travel because of terminal locations, the 

potential for many online stations could make the HST competitive for many other trips. Like air 

travel, the HST has the following door-to-door trip components. (See Appendix 3.2-B for more 

detailed explanation.) 

• Access time: time spent driving to the train station. 

• Terminal time: time spent getting through the train station. 

• Wait time: time spent waiting at the gate for the train to leave. 

• Line-haul time: time spent on the train. 

• Arrival time: time spent getting to the final destination. 

_____________________ 

4 Although this opportunity may increase overall ridership, these out-of-state connecting air travelers have not been included in 

the ridership forecasts provided in this document because of the difficulties in evaluating their competing modal opportunities

and because the likely ridership is small compared to in-state ridership. 

5

 Although the line-haul time of the flight is about 33% of the total trip, due to restrictions on use of electronics during take off and 

landing, the productive time is reduced by another 10%. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.2 Travel Conditions 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.2-12

Table 3.2-7 

Total Door-to-Door Peak HST Mode Travel Times (Hours:Minutes) 

City Pairs 

2020 HST Total Door-to-Door 

Travel Times 

Los Angeles downtown to San Francisco downtown 3:24

Fresno downtown to Los Angeles downtown 2:15 

Los Angeles downtown to San Diego downtown 2:21 

Burbank (airport) to San Jose downtown 1 3:07 

Sacramento downtown to San Jose downtown 2 2:16 

1

 Time based on the Pacheco Pass representative (base) network alternative. Altamont Pass 

representative (base) network alternatives 13 minutes longer. 

2

 Time based on the Pacheco Pass representative (base) network alternative. Altamont Pass 

representative (base) network alternatives 34 minutes shorter. 

Source: Cambridge Systematics 2007. 

Existing conventional rail services are typically not competitive with other modes. For example, while 

the HST line-haul time (a component of total trip time) between downtown San Francisco and Los 

Angeles would be just over 2.5 hours, the only existing direct rail service between the Bay Area 

(Oakland) and Los Angeles (Coast Starlight service) has a line-haul time of more than 12 hours and 

operates one train daily in each direction. The San Joaquin service between Oakland and Los 

Angeles takes about 8 hours and 40 minutes but requires transferring to a bus for the Bakersfield to 

Los Angeles segment of the trip. The HST line-haul time between downtown Los Angeles and 

downtown San Diego would be about 1 hour and 29 minutes, as compared with current Surfliner linehaul time of 2 hours and 0 minutes to 2 hours and 50 minutes. Caltrans and Amtrak plan to reduce 

travel times by up to 30% on key intercity routes, such as the Pacific Surfliner and Capitol Corridor 

services, over the next 20 years; however, the projects required to reach these goals are not yet 

funded. 

Travel Time Effects of the High-Speed Train 

Because of its faster line-haul speed, HST would compete with the automobile for shorter distance 

intercity trips. Because of its shorter terminal processing times, HST would also compete with the 

airplane for longer distance intercity trips. In the Central Valley, HST would provide shorter travel 

times than both the highway and air modes for travelers headed to locations near HST stations. The 

travel time benefits vary considerably between the different HST Network Alternatives depending 

upon the location and number of HST stations. For example, the Pacheco Pass network alternative 

that terminates in San Jose would result in an increased total travel time of 25 minutes to downtown 

San Francisco by auto (transferring to Caltrain commuter rail service would take an additional 69 

minutes compared to HST) and/or 26 minutes to Oakland by auto, as compared to Pacheco Pass 

Alternatives that serve downtown San Francisco and/or Oakland directly. The Altamont Pass 

Alternative that terminates in Union City would increase total travel times using auto to downtown 

San Jose by 14 minutes, to San Francisco by 6 minutes, and Oakland by 15 minutes. 

Reliability

In its simplest form, reliability can be defined as variation in travel time, hour-to-hour and day-to-day 

for the same trip. Reliability is important for almost any travel need and on any travel mode. 

Business travelers want to be able to predict how long it will take them to arrive at a meeting, either 

across town or across the state. Express shippers need to know where packages are at all times and 

when they will be available for delivery. Vacationers who want to spend as little of their time off as 

possible traveling to and from their destinations often find themselves making their trips during the 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.2 Travel Conditions 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.2-13

most congested days of the year. Reliable travel means fewer late arrivals, improved efficiency, 

saved time, and reduced frustration. 

Travel on most transportation modes is consistent and repetitive, yet at the same time highly variable 

and unpredictable. This apparent contradiction occurs because travel is consistent and repetitive 

because peak usage periods occur regularly and can be predicted. The relative size and timing of 

rush hour is well known in most communities. Simultaneously, travel is variable and unpredictable 

because, on any given day, unusual circumstances such as a rainstorm or an auto accident can cause 

serious delays at any time. 

The traveling public’s experience with variations in travel reliability affects their decisions of how and 

when to travel, so that they have a reasonable expectation that they will arrive at their destination at 

a particular time. For example, if a highway is known to have highly variable traffic conditions, a 

traveler using that route to catch a flight routinely leaves extra time to reach the airport. 

Factors Influencing Reliability 

Travel time reliability is the direct result of the variable and often unpredictable events that can occur 

on different travel modes and at any time of day. The traditional way of measuring and reporting 

travel times experienced by highway users is to consider only average or typical conditions. 

However, the travel times experienced by users are seldom constant, even for travel on the same 

facility in the same peak or off-peak time period. Reliability is influenced by several underlying 

factors that vary over time and that influence the environment in which transportation operates. 

These factors are listed below. 

Incidents 

Incidents are events that disrupt normal travel flow, such as obstructions in the travel lanes of 

highways. Events such as vehicular crashes, mechanical breakdowns, and debris in travel lanes are 

the most common form of incidents for any mode. On highways, events that occur on the shoulder 

or roadside can also influence traffic flow by distracting drivers, leading to changes in driver behavior 

and ultimately to the quality of traffic flow. 

Inclement Weather 

Inclement weather and related environmental conditions (e.g., rain, fog, snow, ice, and sun glare) 

can lead to changes in operator behavior, vehicle performance, and operational control requirements 

that affect traffic flow. Motorists respond to inclement weather by reducing their speeds and 

increasing their headways. Airport and civil aviation authorities respond by grounding flights or 

delaying takeoffs and landings. In cases of severe weather, authorities respond by closing roadways 

and creating vehicle caravans. 

Construction 

Construction can often reduce the number, width, or availability of travel lanes, rail tracks, and 

runways. Nearby construction activities can also reduce reliability if operating rules or conditions are 

changed (e.g., slow orders on rail tracks). Delays caused by work zones have been cited by highway 

travelers as one of the most frustrating conditions they encounter on trips. 

Volume Variation 

Volume variation is day-to-day variability in demand that leads to some days with higher travel 

volumes than others. Different demand volumes superimposed on a system with fixed capacity 

results in variable, less reliable travel times. 

Special Events 

Special events, such as concerts, fairs, and sports events, cause localized congestion and disruption 

in the vicinity of the event that is radically different from typical travel patterns in the region. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.2 Travel Conditions 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.2-14

Traffic Control Devices and Procedures 

Traffic control devices and procedures can lead to intermittent disruption of travel flow through 

means such as air traffic control, railroad signals and switches, railroad grade crossings, drawbridges, 

and poorly timed signals. 

Base Capacity 

Base capacity refers to the physical capacity of a transportation system, such as the number the 

highway lanes or runways. The interaction of base capacity with the other influences on reliability 

has an effect on transportation system performance. This effect is caused by the nonlinear 

relationship between volume and capacity on any mode. When congested conditions are 

approached, small changes in volume lead to diminished throughput of the transportation system and 

consequent large changes in delay. Further, facilities with greater base capacity are less vulnerable 

to disruptions; for example, an incident that blocks a single lane has a greater impact on a highway 

with two travel lanes than a highway with three travel lanes. 

Vehicle Availability and Routing 

These can directly affect a traveler’s ability to make an on-time trip, particularly on a common carrier, 

such as airplane and train, or by rental car. End-to-end routing, hubbing,6

 and other strategies to 

maximize vehicle operation time can affect reliability when a vehicle that is needed in one location 

first has to complete a trip from a different location. Short layovers, or pads, that are scheduled 

between trips for a given vehicle also affect vehicle availability. 

The extent to which these eight factors affect each of the major intercity travel modes, and by 

extension the HST, is analyzed and compared on a qualitative basis by describing and ranking the 

extent to which each travel mode is potentially susceptible to each of the eight factors. It is 

presented in Table 3.2-8 and further detailed below. Because trips are composed of combinations of 

modal elements (including different modes for trip segments such as station or terminal access), 

modal rankings have been combined, providing a qualitative understanding of the reliability of each 

mode. 

Table 3.2-8 

Modal Reliability 

Factor 

Relative Susceptibility to Reliability Factors* 

Air Automobile High-Speed Train 

Incidents Low 

Air travel has very few major 

incidents and is generally not 

influenced by incidents on 

other modes. 

High 

Automobile travel can be 

influenced by minor and major 

incidents at any location along 

the roadway and is frequently 

affected by incidents outside the 

right-of-way. 

Low 

HST has very few major 

incidents and is generally not 

influenced by incidents on other 

modes because the number of 

grade crossings is minimal or 

nonexistent. 

Inclement weather High 

A variety of weather conditions 

anywhere in the country can 

affect air travel. 

High 

A variety of weather conditions 

can degrade operator ability, 

make roadways impassible, or 

damage roadways. 

Low 

Trains can operate under 

virtually any conditions. 

Guideway is constructed to 

minimize weather impact. 

_____________________ 

6

 Hubbing is a reference to the “hub and spoke” operations practice where airlines coordinate a large number of their flights to 

arrive at a major terminal at the same time to allow passengers to transfer from one plane to the next to complete their trip to 

their final destination. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.2 Travel Conditions 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.2-15

Factor 

Relative Susceptibility to Reliability Factors* 

Air Automobile High-Speed Train 

Construction Low 

Most activities scheduled for 

periods of low airport usage. 

High-quality construction 

minimizes routine maintenance 

needs. 

Moderate 

Construction activities (major 

and minor) are common, but 

generally occur during warm 

weather months. Lane closures 

are often of long-term duration. 

Low 

Most activities are scheduled for 

hours when system is closed. 

High-quality construction 

minimizes routine maintenance 

needs. 

Special events Low 

Special events (e.g., air space 

closure) are generally rare but 

can lead to rerouting or airport 

closure when they do occur. 

Moderate 

Special events are common and 

can create volume fluctuations or 

short-term lane closures. 

Low 

Most special events can be easily 

accommodated on HST without 

effect on travel time. Guideway 

closures are uncommon for this 

factor. 

Traffic control 

devices or 

procedures 

Moderate 

Reliability strongly influenced 

by air traffic control rules and 

capabilities. 

Moderate 

Auto travel influenced by traffic 

signals, railroad crossings, and 

other devices. Influence 

depends on level to which 

devices are optimized. 

Low 

HST operates in exclusive, 

grade-separated right-of-way, 

minimizing external influences. 

Double-tracked guideway 

minimizes switching needs. HST 

control systems are redundant 

and highly automated, allowing 

for a high level of precision in 

dispatching and control. 

Inadequate base 

capacity 

Moderate 

Capacity can be strong 

influence because of complex 

procedures for gate usage, 

taxiing, and takeoffs/ landings. 

This factor has strong 

interaction with weather at 

certain airports. 

High 

This is one of the strongest 

influences on highway reliability, 

particularly for facilities with 

three or fewer lanes per 

direction. Travel time degrades 

quickly as capacity is 

approached. 

Low 

HST system generally has large 

capacity reserve. Operations are 

not allowed to exceed design 

capacity. Exclusive guideway 

maintains high level of base 

capacity at all times. 

Volume variation Moderate–High

Air travel demand and number 

of scheduled flights fluctuates 

broadly from day to day. 

Aircraft loading and unloading 

times directly affected by 

passenger volumes. 

High 

Peak-period travel in medium to 

large urban areas highly 

influenced by day-to-day or 

seasonal volume variations. 

Strong interaction with 

inadequate base capacity. 

Low 

Day-to-day variation in train 

volumes tends to be low. 

Passenger volume variation 

generally does not influence 

travel times. 

Vehicle availability 

or routing 

High 

Airplanes are used multiple 

times in a given day, and 

availability can be affected by 

factors anywhere in the world 

and with any type of routing 

system (point-to-point or huband-spoke). High capital cost 

discourages airlines from 

keeping large reserve fleet. 

Low 

Private automobiles are 

ubiquitous and are widely 

available for rental in emergency 

situations. The road and 

highway network provides 

alternative routes for most trips. 

Moderate 

HST vehicles complete multiple 

end-to-end trips in a day, 

potentially affecting availability 

at specific times and locations; 

simple routing schemes generally 

followed. 

* High indicates that the factor can exert a strong negative influence on travel time reliability for the mode. Conversely, low indicates that 

the factor generally does not play a role in influencing travel time reliability for the mode. 

Source: Cambridge Systematics 2003. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.2 Travel Conditions 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.2-16

Automobile Mode Characteristics 

On a day-by-day basis, automobiles tend to be the least reliable of the three modes. Highway travel 

is highly or moderately susceptible to seven of the eight factors described above. It is only when 

considering the influence of vehicle availability and routing that automobiles potentially would have a 

lower susceptibility than other modes. 

Recent research provides further evidence on the unreliability of highway travel (Texas 

Transportation Institute and Cambridge Systematics 2003). This research, which used actual travel 

time data covering 579 mi (932 km) of freeways in the Los Angeles area, shows that reliability 

problems exist on highways at all times of the day, all days of the week, and all weeks of the year. 

This research expressed unreliability in terms of a buffer index, the amount of extra time motorists 

would need to budget to be certain of arriving on time at their destination 95% of the time. Results 

showed that a motorist in Los Angeles would need to allow an additional 45 minutes for a typical 1-

hour highway trip—fully 75% of normal driving time. Even in midday periods, a traveler would need 

to budget an additional 30 minutes for the same 1-hour trip, or 50% of the normal time. It is 

important to note that a buffer does not represent certainty, and on any given day this buffer may or 

may not be needed. 

Air Mode Characteristics 

Despite its high average speed, air travel often suffers from reliability problems as a result of several 

factors. The data in Table 3.2-8 suggest that air travel is moderately or highly susceptible to 

weather, vehicle availability, volume variation, inadequate base capacity, and traffic control 

procedures. Air travel is more susceptible than the other two modes to reliability problems arising 

from weather and vehicle availability. Bad weather and a shortage of aircraft in other states can 

impact service in California. Air travel reliability is generally not, however, influenced by incidents, 

construction, or special events. 

Airline on-time statistics compiled by the FAA show air travel reliability problems are widespread in 

California. Airline on-time statistics are available through the Bureau of Transportation Statistics Web 

site (http://www.bts.gov/ntda/oai). These statistics were reviewed to compare actual versus 

scheduled flight times for flights departing from Sacramento (SMF), SFO, LAX, and San Diego (SAN) 

in June 2002.7

 The statistics were analyzed to determine the median scheduled flight time and the 

95th percentile actual flight time for flights departing from these four airports.8

 These times and the 

resulting buffer are shown in Table 3.2-9.9

 

The data in Table 3.2-9 indicate that air travel is generally more reliable than highway travel, as 

suggested by the smaller buffers (10 to 15% for air travel versus 50 to 75% for highway travel). 

Nonetheless, the data also show that air travelers at these four airports still need to budget an 

additional 9 to 18 minutes of in-vehicle travel time to account for unforeseen reliability problems that 

often arise with air travel. 

_____________________ 

7

 Statistics were analyzed for all flights operated by Alaska, America West, American, American Eagle, Delta, Southwest, United, 

and United Express. These eight airlines account for more than 95% of domestic departures at these four airports. More than 

29,000 individual flights were included in the sample. 

8

 The 95th percentile was chosen to maintain consistency with the research results reported for the highway mode. 

9

 As with the highway mode, the buffer indicates the additional time needed above the average (median) time air travelers would

need to budget to arrive on time for their flight with 95% certainty. For air travel, the buffer is expressed as a percentage of the 

median flight time. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.2 Travel Conditions 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.2-17

Table 3.2-9 

Reliability Statistics for Air Travel in California 

Airport 

Time (minutes) 

 Percent Buffer 

(Delay/Scheduled 

Flight Time) 

Delay 

(95th Percentile 

Travel Time) 

Scheduled Flight 

Duration 

(Median) 

Sacramento (SMF) 9 85 10.6 

San Diego (SAN) 12 90 13.3 

San Francisco (SFO) 18 118 15.3 

Los Angeles (LAX) 12 110 10.9 

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics 2002. 

HST has been shown to have a low susceptibility to nearly all of the major factors that affect 

reliability. It is only on the issue of vehicle availability that HST, like all common carrier modes, has a 

higher level of susceptibility than highways. Also, HST has the same or lower level of susceptibility 

on all eight factors compared with air travel or even conventional rail. 

Statistics from HST operations in Europe and Asia further confirm the high level of reliability that is 

inherent with HST. In France, more than 98% of TGV train runs have been completed within 1 min 

of schedule. In Spain during 2002, 99.8% of AVE runs were completed within 5 min of schedule. In 

Japan, the JR Central Shinkansen line averaged a 16-second delay per train in 2002. Using the 

buffer concept that was described for highways and air, these data suggest that HST travelers would 

likely need to have a schedule buffer less than 1 minutes (less than 1% of scheduled travel time) to 

account for unforeseen delay and reliability. This in-vehicle travel time buffer is extremely small 

compared to all other modes. 

HST systems have proven worldwide to be far more reliable than conventional U.S. intercity rail 

services. Several factors account for this reliability. 

• Intercity rail service involves mixed operations between conventional intercity passenger services 

and heavy freight traffic, whereas the HST service would not share tracks with heavy freight 

services. 

• Depending on location and number of operations, the quality of train signal/control/dispatch 

systems for freight rail systems vary, whereas the HST services would use state-of-the-art 

automated control systems. 

• Most conventional intercity passenger rail routes operate on freight railroads that are dispatched 

by the host freight railroad. Therefore, dispatching decisions may be based first on the needs of 

the host railroad, and then on the needs of the passenger train. For example, if a freight train is 

too long to go into a siding, the dispatcher will have to put the passenger train in the siding to 

wait until the longer freight train passes. This is just one type of delay for passenger trains using 

freight railroads. 

• Grade crossings are inherently dangerous, providing the opportunity for vehicle and pedestrian 

collisions and delay due to malfunction of grade-crossing protection equipment. The HST service 

would be completely double-tracked, fenced, and grade-separated. 

Although detailed statistics were not available, reports on rail operations in California suggest 

that conventional rail reliability is low (California Department of Transportation 2002). Although 

Amtrak strives to complete a minimum of 90% of its train runs on time, the most recent data 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.2 Travel Conditions 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.2-18

show that the Capitol Corridor is on time about 75% of the time, while intercity service within the 

LOSSAN corridor is on time about 78% of the time. 

Reliability Effects of the HST Alternatives 

The HST is likely to provide a greater degree of travel reliability than the No Project Alternative for 

the following reasons. 

• HST would divert significant levels of intercity demand from less reliable modes, particularly 

highways. 

• HST would provide a completely separate transportation system that would have less 

susceptibility to many factors influencing reliability. 

• Highway and air travel reliability would improve because HST would reduce travel demand on 

highways and air. 

The HST alternatives would not be likely to exhibit appreciable differences in system reliability 

because system capacity and demand would be roughly equivalent. Major design differences (e.g., 

extent of tunneling) would not make a meaningful difference in reliability, and differences in base 

travel times on HST would not influence reliability. The reliability of the HST system would not 

change for the various HST Network Alternatives. However, for HST passengers, adding transfers to 

other modes and/or longer automobile access/egress trips would have a negative impact on reliability 

of their total trip. 

Sensitivity to Travel Demand Forecasts 

As with travel time, reliability is also influenced by the level of travel demand. Other things being 

equal, reliability is expected to be better on facilities that have lower travel demand (or experience 

lower V/C ratios) because of the nonlinear relationship between volume and capacity, as mentioned 

above. Therefore, lower levels of highway or air travel demand with the HST, such as those 

suggested by the ridership forecasts, would be expected to improve reliability for the highway and air 

modes. Given the large reliability advantage enjoyed by the HST mode, the HST alternatives would 

be expected to provide the greatest degree of travel reliability across the range of travel demand 

scenarios. 

Safety

In transportation, three basic characteristics interact to influence the safety of a mode. 

• Operator: His or her training, regulation, and experience. 

• Vehicle: Its condition, regulation, control systems, and crashworthiness. 

• Environment: Weather, guideway type, guideway condition, and terrain. 

Each of these characteristics plays a role in the overall safety of the modes, which for this analysis is 

quantified as the probability of passenger fatality. Injuries are more difficult to compare between 

modes because they are categorized differently by mode and different injury ratings are used. For 

instance, automobile injuries are generally related to automobile crashes, while for air, bus, and rail 

they can include injuries that occur as part of a crash, while boarding/alighting, or in the terminal. 

The severity of these injuries can vary from scrapes and bruises to life-threatening ones. For the 

purposes of this analysis, injuries by mode will be discussed but are not measured as a key indicator 

of safety. This analysis also only considers injuries and fatalities of passengers and does not include 

employees or other staff. 

To assess the relative safety effect of implementing the HST system, analysis has focused on 

fatalities measured by rate of fatality per 100 million passenger miles traveled. For this analysis the 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.2 Travel Conditions 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.2-19

high-end HST ridership forecasts were used because this approach would present the worst case for 

potential fatalities for all modes and alternatives. The safest mode is the one that has the lowest 

number of fatalities per 100 million passenger miles traveled (PMT). 

Automobile Mode Characteristics 

The automobile is unquestionably the most used and the most dangerous of highway, air, and rail 

modes. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that the national motor vehicle 

fatality rate is 0.80 fatalities per 100 million passenger miles traveled. Nationally in 2000, there were 

about 6.4 million reported motor vehicle crashes that resulted in 42,000 fatalities and 3.2 million 

injuries. About 4.2 million crashes involved property damage only (National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 2001). The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that deaths and 

injuries resulting from motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for persons between the 

ages of 4 and 33, while traffic-related fatalities account for more than 90% of all transportationrelated fatalities. According to the California Highway Patrol, in 2000 there were 3,331 fatal crashes 

in California alone (California Highway Patrol 2000). The risk to an individual depends most strongly 

on the time spent behind the wheel or in the passenger seat. The longer the journey or the more 

frequently the journey is made, the greater the risk of a crash. Some of the factors that influence 

auto and highway safety are listed below. 

• Operator. 

− Drivers vary in age, experience, ability, and many other factors. 

− Nonprofessional drivers typically operate automobiles. 

− Limited regulatory requirements govern who can operate an automobile and the type of 

training that is needed, and these requirements vary between states. 

• Vehicle. 

− Privately owned vehicles are mechanically not as reliable as the public transportation modes. 

− Maintenance and inspections are not regulated, and are performed by mechanics of varying 

skill levels. 

− Crashworthiness and roadworthiness varies depending on make and model. 

− Minimum requirements rather than optimum standards dictate safe operating conditions. 

• Environment. 

− Highways provide no latitudinal or longitudinal control to individual automobiles. 

− Fixed objects (e.g., trees, light poles, sign posts) are frequently placed within the highway 

right-of-way. 

− Weather and lighting conditions (wind, rain, fog, snow, ice, darkness, and sun glare) can 

adversely impact vehicle and driver performance. 

− Traffic control systems that regulate the speed and safe operation of an automobile are 

limited in influence. 

− Roadway conditions and designs are varied and can include systems based on different 

design speeds, vehicles, and operating conditions. 

− Drivers are subject to a multitude of potential distractions and interferences. 

Air Mode Characteristics 

Air travel is a safe mode of travel and in recent years has become even safer with the introduction of 

improved aircraft and state-of-the-art air traffic control systems. According to the U.S. Department 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.2 Travel Conditions 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.2-20

of Transportation (DOT), the likelihood of fatality due to commercial air travel is relatively small 

(0.02 fatalities per 100 million PMT). According to the University of Michigan Transportation 

Research Institute, flying a typical nonstop flight is 65 times safer than driving the same distance. 

Takeoff and landing presents the greatest safety risk during a flight; between 1991 and 2000, 95% 

of all airline fatalities occurred either during takeoff or landing, and just 5% of fatalities occurred at 

cruising altitudes (Sivak and Flannagan 2002). Consequently, the risks of flying depend mostly on 

the number of segments flown and not on the distance flown. Injuries associated with air travel can 

occur during the process of boarding and alighting, and during flight. Most are relatively minor and 

include scrapes, bruises, broken bones, and a few serious falls. Some of the factors that influence air 

travel safety are listed below. 

• Operator. 

− Commercial aircraft can only be operated by professional pilots, who are rigorously trained 

and must update their proficiency regularly. 

− Other airline personnel such as flight attendants are trained to provide immediate assistance 

in emergency situations. 

− Pilots are subject to drug tests and are regulated by the FAA. 

− Automation of fight operations is well developed and commonly installed. 

• Vehicle. 

− Aircraft are regularly maintained to high standards and the FAA regularly inspects these 

maintenance records. 

− Aircraft themselves are constructed of high-grade metals and, provided they are maintained 

regularly, can be in active service for decades. 

− All aircraft occupants are required to wear seatbelts during takeoffs and landings, the two 

procedures that present the greatest safety risk. 

− Air traffic control systems in the United States are standardized and are some of the safest, 

most reliable systems in the world for controlling commercial aircraft and warning them of 

potential dangers. 

• Environment. 

− One of air travel’s greatest weaknesses is its vulnerability to weather. Although most 

commercial aircraft can fly above or below most storm systems, they often have no choice 

during takeoffs and landings but to fly through thunderstorms, snow, ice, and fog. 

Particularly severe weather conditions can ground all aircraft and prevent those in flight from 

landing. 

− Unexpected turbulence during flight can injure passengers. For this reason, passengers are 

often required to wear seat restraints and are discouraged from walking or standing during 

flight. 

− Aircraft have no guideway to provide latitudinal or longitudinal control and therefore run the 

risk of striking fixed or other flying objects while on the ground or during flight. 

High-Speed Train Mode Characteristics 

Based on statistics from Europe and Japan, HST is the safest mode of travel.10 Since 1988, there 

have been 85 injuries and 14 fatalities11 reported on all dedicated HST systems in Europe. In Japan’s 

_____________________ 

10 There are no statistics for HST safety in the United States. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.2 Travel Conditions 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.2-21

34 years of HST operations, no passenger fatalities have been reported. For the purposes of this 

analysis and for comparison purposes only, it is assumed that the fatality rate for HST is less than air 

travel but greater than 0.0, or 0.001 per 100 million PMT. Similar to air travel, the likelihood of injury 

is associated with boarding and alighting, and during operation, with injuries ranging from minor to 

severe. The distinguishing reasons for the safety of HST travel relative to air and highway travel are 

summarized below. The HST mode would be much safer than conventional intercity rail services in 

California, which operate on freight railroads that have a mix of rail traffic and grade crossings. 

• Operator. 

− HST operators would be rigorously trained and tested and would be required to update their 

qualifications regularly. 

− HST operators would be required to submit to drug tests and would be subject to regulation 

by the FRA and operating railroads. 

− The train would be completely automated and the train operator would be a failsafe 

redundant system component that could act in the unlikely case that a system malfunction or 

other problem occurs. 

• Vehicle. 

− The FRA passenger equipment safety standards (49 CFR Part 238) dictate the buff strength 

or amount of force a train can withstand in a collision, for all passenger equipment. The buff 

strength is adjusted to the operating and rail traffic conditions and is designed to minimize 

injuries or fatalities caused by rail crashes. 

− The trains would be completely automated, allowing for centralized command and control of 

the train system, effectively eliminating the chance of operator error. Much like the BART 

system in the San Francisco Bay Area, a centralized system would control the operation of 

the train while the operator would be the physical eyes and ears of the train ensuring 

passenger safety. 

− Like airplanes, trains and the infrastructure they operate on (tracks, control systems, and 

electrification systems) would be maintained on a regular schedule. Maintenance records 

would be subject to inspection by the FRA. 

− Like aircraft, passenger train equipment is built for a long service life. If maintained properly, 

a modern train car can have a useful life of at least 30 years. 

− HST traffic control and communications systems are state-of-the-art, regulated, and 

managed during all hours of operation. These systems control the train’s speed, schedule, 

routing, and headway (following distance behind another train). These systems, combined 

with the operator, have integral redundancy and ensure safety. 

• Environment. 

− The HST system would be fully access controlled and grade-separated (including grade 

crossings), virtually eliminating pedestrian and motor vehicle conflicts. 

− The HST system would be closed to all other rail traffic, greatly reducing the possibility of 

collision with other trains. An exception is the Caltrain corridor between Gilroy and San 

Francisco, where the HST would travel at reduced speeds and share the track with express 

commuter passenger trains. 

 11 The worst accident on a dedicated high-speed right-of-way was a derailment in Piacenza, Italy in 1997, which resulted in 

eight fatalities. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.2 Travel Conditions 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.2-22

− Inclement weather has only a minimal impact on HST operations. Because it is nearly 

impossible to read line side signals flashing by at 200 mph (322 kph), HSTs use a cab 

signaling system that transmits commands directly to the driver. This technology makes 

high-speed operation possible in darkness, rain, and fog. In Japan, even moderate snowfall 

does not slow the Shinkansen because of special ice-melting equipment built into the rail 

bed. 

− Unlike aircraft, HST systems are not subject to turbulence. Passengers may sit without seat 

restraints and may stand and walk comfortably even at maximum speeds and around curves. 

− Although HST systems do operate in highly seismic areas, such as Japan, no fatalities have 

ever occurred as a result of a seismic event. Failsafe technology would stop the trains when 

an earthquake is detected, and at-grade construction in fault zones would further improve 

safety. 

− The HST system, like other public intercity modes, would be inspected on a regular schedule 

as required in federal regulations. This regular inspection of both rolling stock and track 

would ensure the safety of the HST. 

The safety characteristics of each mode are summarized in Table 3.2-10. This table shows that for 

all three safety characteristics, the HST mode has the best safety performance. While air and HST 

are similar in regard to operator and vehicle characteristics, HST performs better with regard to the 

environment because the HST mode is capable of operating safely and comfortably in a variety of 

climatic conditions compared to aircraft, without the need for passenger restraints. The automobile 

mode fares poorest in terms of safety.

Table 3.2-10 

Safety Performance by Mode 

Mode 

Safety Performance Characteristics 

Operator 

(Training, Regulation, 

Experience) 

Vehicle 

(Condition, Regulation, Control 

Systems, Crashworthiness) 

Environment 

(Weather, Guideway 

Condition, Terrain) 

Automobile Poor Good Poor 

Air Excellent Excellent Poor 

HST Excellent Excellent Excellent 

Safety Effects of the HST Alternatives 

The HST alternatives would provide a safety benefit compared to the No Project Alternative. HST 

would divert up to 21 million annual intercity highway trips compared to the No Project Alternative, 

resulting in fewer injuries and fatalities annually. The HST alternatives would have the best overall 

safety performance, primarily because they divert passengers from the least safe automobile mode to 

HST, the safest mode. This demand shift combined with the rigorous requirements of HST operators, 

regular vehicle inspection, maintenance, control systems, crashworthiness, and ability to operate in 

virtually all weather conditions, make the HST alternatives superior to the No Project Alternative. For 

the HST Network Alternatives, the safety benefit would vary, depending on the ridership potential of 

the alternative. The HST Network Alternatives with the highest ridership potential would promote the 

best overall safety performance. 

Connectivity

Connectivity in the study region and the state can be measured qualitatively and quantitatively using 

the number of modal options that offer competitive transportation services, the availability of 

intermodal connections, and the frequency of service (number of departures). A greater number of 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.2 Travel Conditions 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.2-23

competitive modal options is considered a benefit because it increases the diversity, redundancy, and 

flexibility of the overall transportation system and provides travelers with greater choices. 

• Modal options are a measure of the intercity modal diversity of each of the alternatives. 

• An intermodal connection or facility allows passengers to transfer from one mode to another to 

complete a trip. A connection can be as simple as a timed connection between a train and a bus 

or as elaborate as the BART connection to SFO where air, rail, and bus all converge to give 

multiple transportation options. 

• Frequency is measured as the number of departures available to travelers in the study region and 

state. High service frequency benefits travelers because it increases the number of possible 

connections to different modes and the number of options available for travel to a destination. 

Modal Options 

The No Project Alternative provides four modal options: automobile, air, intercity rail, and intercity 

bus. However, intercity travel in California is dominated by automobile and air transportation. The 

automobile accounts for over 95% of all intercity trips, with air transportation representing more than 

3% and conventional rail carrying most of the remaining trips. Although the automobile and air 

modes compete against one another for the longer-distance intercity trips, such as San Francisco to 

Los Angeles, the automobile is without rival for many intermediate intercity trips. Table 3.2-11 shows 

intercity trips by mode between the major metropolitan regions for the proposed HST system. 

Between the San Francisco Bay Area and the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area, air transportation serves 

almost 43.4% of the travel market, and the automobile accounts for 56.6%. Air transportation offers 

fast enough travel times to compete for the long-distance business travel market. Trips between the 

Central Valley and either the San Francisco Bay Area or the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area are good 

examples of intermediate intercity trips. For these markets, the automobile serves 97.4% of the 

travel market, while air transportation serves 1.5% and conventional rail serves about 1.1%. 

Table 3.2-11 

2005 Intercity Trip Table Summarya

Market 

2005 Base Trips 

Auto Air 

Conventional 

Rail 

Los Angeles to Sacramento 3,461,478 1,819,829 -

Los Angeles to San Diego 103,881,859 26,523 3,388,599 

Los Angeles to San Francisco 11,186,216 8,562,048 -

Sacramento to San Francisco 49,821,831 7,665 1,860,770 

Sacramento to San Diego 95,143 1,099,745 -

San Diego to San Francisco 2,596,853 4,842,881 -

Los Angeles/San Francisco to Valley Cities 83,490,526 1,257,364 922,355 

To/From Monterey/Central Coast 118,482,711 177,573 537,584 

To/From Far North 109,606,519 1,040,311 327,101 

To/From W. Sierra Nevada 75,634,813 1,039,763 67,038 

Total 581,985,626 20,094,345 7,136,298 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.2 Travel Conditions 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.2-24

Market 

2005 Base Trips 

Auto Air 

Conventional 

Rail 

a

 Air trips in this table are “local” (or true origin/destination) air trips between metropolitan areas. 

Connect air trips (which are not destined to a city within the corridor), and their potential for 

diversion to HST were not forecast in this study. The diversion to HST of connect trips is small in 

absolute numbers and limited to a few shorter distance intercity markets. b

 Conventional rail trips do not include rail operators that run buses to extend rail service into 

additional cities because demand for these services is very small. 

Source: Cambridge Systematics 2007. 

The HST system would provide a new intercity and regional passenger mode of transportation that 

would improve connectivity to other existing transit modes and airports. HST would bring 

competitive travel times and frequent and reliable service to the traditional urban centers of the San 

Francisco Bay Area, Los Angeles Metropolitan Area, Sacramento, and San Diego. It would 

significantly improve the modal options available in the Central Valley and other areas of the state 

not well served by public transport (bus, rail, or air) for intercity trips. 

Tables 3.2-12 (low end) and 3.2-13 (high end) show intercity trips by mode between the major 

metropolitan regions in the state projected for 2030 with a statewide HST system. Under the lowend, or base case, assumptions, between the San Francisco Bay Area (MTC region) and the Los 

Angeles Metropolitan Area (SCAG region), HST is projected to capture at least 41% of the travel 

market. Air transportation would serve up to 27% of the travel market, the automobile up to 32%, 

and conventional rail virtually none of the market. For the high-end ridership assumptions, between 

the San Francisco Bay Area and the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area, HST is projected to capture up to 

71% of the travel market, with the automobile as low as 25%, air transportation serving as little as 

4%, and conventional rail virtually none of the market. For trips between the Central Valley and 

either the San Francisco Bay Area or the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area, the automobile would serve 

88% of the intercity travel market, while HST would capture 9% for the low-end forecasts (85% 

automobile trips and 13% HST trips for the high-end forecasts). The HST system would provide 

similar benefits to other intermediate intercity markets it serves. For longer-distance intercity trips, 

HST would provide a competitive alternative to driving and flying. For shorter intercity trips, HST 

would also be an attractive alternative to driving. Between the San Diego and Los Angeles 

metropolitan regions, HST captures 17% of the market, but this is a large intercity market and results 

in 22 million HST trips in 2030 (or 28 million HST trips in the high-end scenario). 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.2 Travel Conditions 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.2-25

Table 3.2-12 

2030 Intercity Trip Table Summary for the Base Case Scenario 

Auto Air 

Amtrak 

Rail HST Total Portion

Los Angeles to Sacramento 2,447,325 1,956,035 - 3,314,200 7,717,560 1%

Los Angeles to San Diego 108,245,472 14,609 3,578,088 22,297,219 134,135,388 15%

Los Angeles to San Francisco 6,654,680 5,572,820 - 8,358,500 20,586,000 2%

Sacramento to San Francisco 61,404,194 2,199 4,096,594 2,685,366 68,188,353 8%

Sacramento to San Diego 53,501 1,803,903 - 123,606 1,981,010 0%

San Diego to San Francisco 1,035,505 4,134,720 - 3,422,970 8,593,195 1%

Los Angeles/San Francisco 

to Valley Cities 120,816,701 2,384,427 1,631,124 12,666,311 137,498,563 15%

Other 198,613,326 496,401 1,218,372 4,247,149 204,575,248 23%

To/From Monterey/ 

Central Coast 151,777,421 1,616,825 639,414 4,523,086 158,556,746 18%

To/From Far North 115,344,917 1,350,252 339,208 2,654,082 119,688,459 13%

To/From W. Sierra Nevada 34,142,605 313,313 100,691 1,218,470 35,775,079 4%

Total 800,535,647 19,645,504 11,603,491 65,510,959 897,295,601 100%

Table 3.2-13 

2030 Intercity Trip Table Summary Sensitivity Analysis Scenario (High-End) 

Auto Air 

Amtrak 

Rail HST Total Portion

Los Angeles to Sacramento 1,704,185 460,630 - 5,454,195 7,619,010 1%

Los Angeles to San Diego 98,986,175 - 6,439,695 28,173,985 133,599,855 15%

Los Angeles to San Francisco 5,126,790 836,215 - 14,478,090 20,441,095 2%

Sacramento to San Francisco 58,451,465 - 5,407,475 3,378,440 67,237,380 7%

Sacramento to San Diego 72,270 654,810 - 1,095,000 1,822,080 0%

San Diego to San Francisco 601,155 644,955 - 7,186,850 8,432,960 1%

Los Angeles/San Francisco to 

Valley Cities 114,560,725 2,557,555 18,074,070 135,192,350 15%

Other 195,926,890 293,460 1,738,860 5,865,915 203,825,125 23%

To/From Monterey/Central 

Coast 148,689,320 255,135 927,830 6,419,985 156,292,270 17%

To/From Far North 111,904,255 547,135 444,570 3,436,475 116,332,435 13%

To/From W. Sierra Nevada 43,574,276 159,147 390,305 2,944,987 47,068,715 5%

Total 779,597,506 3,851,487 17,906,290 96,507,992 897,863,275 100%

Intermodal Connections 

The automobile can be used to go virtually anywhere in California. Unlike common carrier 

transportation modes (air, bus, or rail), the automobile does not require or depend on intermodal 

connections to get from the trip origin to the trip destination. The flexibility of the automobile mode 

would be unaffected by the HST. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.2 Travel Conditions 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.2-26

Scheduled airline service allows a traveler to reach any destination served by commercial airlines in a 

relatively short travel time. Unlike the automobile, commercial air travel requires intermodal 

connections to get to the airport and to a final destination. Moreover, airports are predominately 

located outside major city centers, a considerable distance from the major transit hubs, which are 

typically downtown. With the exception of the San Francisco and Burbank airports, which are served 

directly by rail, all airports in California require transfers to automobiles or road-based public 

transportation. 

It is assumed that there would be limited new intermodal connections under the No Project 

Alternative because a limited number of these improvements are currently planned and programmed. 

HST stations would be generally located at existing transportation centers that could serve a wider 

area through public transit and would enhance intermodal connections in each region. HST stations 

in the traditional urban cores of the Sacramento area, the San Francisco Bay Area, and Los Angeles 

area would connect to the heart of the established public transit networks. For example, Los Angeles 

Union Station (LAUS) is projected to be the most heavily used HST station. LAUS is the transit hub of 

Los Angeles County and is the primary destination for the Metrolink Commuter rail services, the Los 

Angeles Metro Red Line, the Pasadena Gold Line, the Amtrak Surfliner service, and the regional bus 

transit services. The proposed Transbay Transit Center in San Francisco would be located in the 

heart of San Francisco’s financial district and within walking distance of all major downtown hotels, 

the convention center, and Union Square retail. The Transbay Transit Center would also serve 

Caltrain commuter rail, all the major bus services to downtown San Francisco, BART, and the 

extensive San Francisco Municipal Railway (Muni) light-rail system. 

The HST could have a profound effect on the Central Valley and on outlying areas that are not well 

served by other forms of public transportation. The HST would provide convenient and reliable 

connections to the airports and downtowns of San Francisco and Los Angeles and to Central Valley 

cities. All of the potential HST station sites in the Central Valley would either be in city centers or at 

transportation hubs (airports and Amtrak stations). 

Frequency 

The automobile, by offering unlimited potential frequency and because it can be driven at virtually 

any time and to virtually any destination, has the highest connectivity of any mode. 

Although 17 commercial airports are in the area that would be served by the HST system, the range 

of city pairs served is considerably narrower because little to no commercial service exists between 

some of the city pairs. Air travel is market-driven and consequently airlines concentrate their 

operations on markets that are profitable. The San Francisco Bay Area to Los Angeles Metropolitan 

Area corridor is the most heavily traveled air corridor in the world. This intercity travel market and 

the long distance markets to/from Sacramento and to/from San Diego have many daily departures 

and arrivals. In other regions such as the Central Valley, where demand is lower and the distances 

shorter, the number of daily flights serving California intercity markets is far more limited. 

Table 3.2-14 shows the daily 2005 average air frequencies by airport pair (Cambridge Systematics 

2007). While LAX has service to ten airports in California with more than 400 flights per day total, 

Bakersfield has flights to only four airports in the state and 45 flights per day total. Arcata and 

Modesto have service to only three airports in the state, and Santa Barbara serves only two airports 

in California. There is virtually no air service between cities within the Central Valley (Modesto, 

Bakersfield, Merced, and Fresno). 

The HST system would be a new intercity service in the statewide intercity transportation network 

that would offer a variety of services with different stopping patterns (express, skip-stop, and local 

services) to serve long-distance, intermediate, and shorter-distance intercity trips. Consequently, 

HST would increase frequencies for some city pairs that are not well served by air transportation. In 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.2 Travel Conditions 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.2-27

addition to the major city pairs, smaller cities in the Central Valley and suburban cities surrounding 

the major markets would be directly connected with frequent intercity service. 

Table 3.2-14 

 2005 Average Air Frequencies (Flights per Day) by Airport Pair (Each Direction)a,b

City Code SAN SNA LGB LAX ONT BUR SJC SFO OAK SMF MRY 

San Diego SAN - - - - - - - - - - - 

Santa Ana SNA - - - - - - - - - - - 

Long Beach LGB - - - - - - - - - - - 

Los Angeles LAX 47 - - - - - - - - - - 

Ontario ONT - - - - - - - - - - - 

Burbank BUR - - - - - - - - - - - 

San Jose SJC 31 20 - 54 8 9 - - - - - 

San 

Francisco SFO 60 35 - 101 22 30 - - - - - 

Oakland OAK 29 23 7 60 17 16 - - - - - 

Sacramento SMF 39 14 9 42 18 21 - 15 - - - 

Palm Springs PSP 33 - - 23 - - 9 20 12 11 - 

Oxnard OXR - - - - - - - 8 5 8 - 

Santa 

Barbara SBA - - - - - - - 14 - 10 - 

Bakersfield BFL 10 17 - 10 - - - - - - 8 

Fresno FAT 18 23 - 29 6 14 - 11 - - 2 

Monterey MRY - - - 25 - - 3 10 5 4 - 

Arcata ACV 9 7 - 10 - - - - - - - 

Modesto MOD 7 7 - 11 - - - - - - - 

a

 Three-digit codes for airports used as the column headings correspond to the airport names in the row headings. 

b

 Source: Federal Aviation Administration data from the 10% ticket sample, supplemented with internet queries 

in August 2006. This includes direct and connecting service for intra-state flights where demand in 2005 is 

greater than one trip per day (400 annual trips). 

The proposed HST system would serve about 20–30 stations (depending on alignment alternative 

selected). Table 3.2-15 shows the number of daily trains (for each direction) served for each station 

pair, as assumed for the base case Altamont and Pacheco Pass representative alternatives. This 

table shows that, compared to air transportation, the addition of HST service would greatly increase 

the number of trains serving major and intermediate destinations. For example, Fresno and 

Bakersfield are expected to have service to 25 stations/cities with frequencies of 26 trains daily in 

each direction. Central Valley cities, such as Merced, Modesto, Stockton, and Visalia as well as 

additional urban markets in the San Francisco Bay Area and southern California, such as East San 

Gabriel Valley, Palo Alto/Redwood City, Riverside, Sylmar, and Escondido, would receive frequent 

service to all HST stations. 

Connectivity Effects of the HST Alternatives 

The HST alternatives would be a new mode in the state’s intercity transportation system. The HST 

would create a variety of new intermodal connections to local, regional, and intercity modes. The 

HST would add frequencies to the state’s intercity travel network, allowing greater flexibility in travel 

time and location; however, the HST could result in some decreases in air frequencies in some 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.2 Travel Conditions 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.2-28

markets. As compared to the No Project Alternative, the HST alternatives provide the highest level of 

connectivity in the study region and state, particularly between the Central Valley cities and the city 

centers of the major metropolitan areas. The level of improvement in connectivity varies among the 

HST Network Alternatives. The network alternatives that directly serve San Francisco, Oakland, and 

San Jose would provide the greatest connectivity benefit. 

Passenger Cost

Passenger cost is a measure of the relative differences in travel costs between the No Project and 

HST alternatives. Passenger cost for this analysis means the total cost of the trip, including the cost 

of traveling to the airport or station, the airplane or train fare, and other associated expenses. Cost 

is one of the key factors that can influence passenger choice of modes. 

There is a range of existing intercity travel options, from relatively inexpensive intercity bus to 

premium air. For example, the cost of traveling round-trip between Los Angeles and San Francisco 

(one of the busiest travel corridors in the world) can be as little as $25 for an intercity bus ticket to as 

much as $350 for a walk-up fare for airline travel. The air travel market particularly features large 

variations in fares. Sources of these variations include the following factors. 

• Time of travel: Peak-period travel tends to be more expensive, and Saturday night stays tend to 

be less expensive. 

• Time of booking: Early bookings tend to be less expensive, while last-minute bookings are more 

expensive. 

• Airport choice: Travel between major destinations such as Los Angeles and San Francisco boasts 

a variety of options and fares, while travel to or from smaller airports with limited service, such 

as Fresno and Bakersfield, have greatly limited fare and travel choices. 

Passenger cost is quantitatively measured by actual costs to the passenger associated with a typical 

door-to-door trip. The representative city pairs presented in the travel time discussion earlier in the 

section are used as a basis to compare the relative differences in cost 

Automobile Mode Characteristics 

For highway travel, it is assumed that the entire door-to-door trip is made with a private automobile 

and that there are no ancillary access costs. Automobile travel costs are shown as the total costs per 

auto. The total costs of operating a vehicle include maintenance, repairs, and taxes, which are 

shown on a per-auto basis in Table 3.2-16. These costs do not include other costs of owning an 

auto, such as depreciation, financing, or insurance. The ridership and revenue estimates are based 

on the perceived costs of making an automobile trip (e.g., fuel and maintenance) and do not include 

all of the true costs associated with owning and operating a vehicle. 

Table 3.2-17 summarizes the costs for making a one-way trip for the representative city pairs. Tolls 

and parking are included in these estimates. All-day parking in downtown San Francisco or Los 

Angeles was set at $25. As shown in the table, the door–to-door average perceived one-way cost 

per person for traveling between representative city pairs by highway range from $40 to $137 for 

total costs. 
Table 3.2-15 

2030 High-Speed Train Frequencies (Trains per Day) by Station Pair (Ea

Pacheco Pass 

San Francisco (Transbay) 

Millbrae 

Redwood Cit

y

San Jose 

Gilro

y

Sacramento 

Stockton 

Merced 

Fresno 

Bakersfield 

Palmdale 

Sylma

r

Burban

k

Los Angeles Union Station 

Norwal

k

Anaheim 

San Francisco (Transbay) Millbrae1

54 

Redwood City 

54 54 - 

San Jose 

28 54 54 

Gilroy 

53 53 53 53 - 

Sacramento 

36 18 18 36 18 - 

Stockton 

18 18 18 18 18 47 - 

Merced 

18 18 18 18 18 26 26 - 

Fresno 

36 20 20 36 20 23 23 8 - 

Bakersfield 

36 20 20 36 20 23 23 8 55 - 

Palmdale 

32 32 32 32 31 20 20 8 30 36 - 

Sylmar 

32 32 32 32 31 20 20 8 30 36 54 - 

Burbank 

32 32 32 32 31 20 20 8 30 36 54 54 - 

Los Angeles Union Station1 28 32 32 28 31 37 29 8 55 61 54 54 54 Norwalk 

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 5 5 5 - 

Anaheim 

15 5 5 15 6 7 5 6 7 8 7 7 7 22 5 - 
Table 3.2-15. Continued 

San Francisco (Transbay) 

Millbrae 

Redwood City

San Jose 

Gilroy

Sacramento 

Stockton 

Merced 

Fresno 

Bakersfield 

Palmdale 

Sylmar

Burbank

Los Angeles Union Station 

Norwalk

Anaheim 

Irvine 

15 5 5 15 6 7 5 6 7 8 7 7 7 22 5 22 

Ontario 

32 27 27 32 27 24 20 8 32 37 47 47 47 58 5 26 

Riverside 

32 27 27 32 27 24 20 8 32 37 47 47 47 58 5 26 

Temecula 

32 27 27 32 27 24 20 8 32 37 47 47 47 58 5 26 

Escondido 

32 27 27 32 27 24 20 8 32 37 47 47 47 58 5 26 

University City 

32 27 27 32 27 24 20 8 32 37 47 47 47 58 5 26 

San Diego 

48 27 27 48 27 30 26 8 48 53 47 47 47 80 5 26 

Morgan Hill 

53 53 53 53 56 18 18 18 22 25 34 34 34 34 3 3 

City of Industry 

32 27 27 32 27 24 20 8 32 37 47 47 47 58 5 26 

Modesto (Briggsmore) 18 18 18 18 18 35 35 26 18 18 8 8 8 18 3 6 
Table 3.2-15. Continued 

Altamont Pass 

San Francisco 

(Transbay) (1) 

Millbrae 

Redwood City

San Jose 

Sacramento 

Stockton 

Tracy DT

Modesto/SP 

Downtown 

Merced 

Fresno 

Bakersfield 

Palmdale 

Sylmar

Burbank

Los Angeles Union 

Station 

Norwalk

Millbrae 

38 

Redwood City 

38 38 

San Jose 

43 37 37 

Sacramento 

18 14 14 18 

Stockton 

17 14 14 5 49 

Tracy DT 

38 38 38 22 22 16 

Modesto/SP Downtown 

10 10 10 11 17 15 21 

Merced 

10 10 10 11 8 5 21 26 

Fresno 

24 10 10 17 23 23 21 36 26 

Bakersfield 

25 15 15 8 23 23 19 33 22 57 

Palmdale 

22 22 22 9 18 20 33 22 22 27 36 

Sylmar 

22 22 22 9 18 20 33 22 22 27 36 54 

Burbank 

22 22 22 9 18 20 33 22 22 27 36 54 54 

Los Angeles Union Station1 14 22 22 13 37 29 33 33 22 57 61 54 54 54 Norwalk 

3 3 3 5 5 3 5 3 3 8 3 5 5 5 5 - 

Anaheim 

8 4 4 6 5 4 7 4 3 18 8 7 7 7 22 5 

Irvine 

8 4 4 6 5 4 7 4 3 18 8 7 7 7 22 5 

Ontario 

18 18 18 12 24 20 26 22 20 23 37 47 47 47 58 5 

Riverside 

18 18 18 12 24 20 26 22 20 23 37 47 47 47 58 5 

Temecula 

18 18 18 12 24 20 26 22 20 23 37 47 47 47 58 5 
Table 3.2-15. Continued 

San Francisco 

(Transbay) (1) 

Millbrae 

Redwood Cit

y

San Jose 

Sacramento 

Stockton 

Tracy D

T

Modesto/SP 

Downtown 

Merced 

Fresno 

Bakersfield 

Palmdale 

Sylma

r

Burban

k

Los Angeles Union 

Station 

Norwal

k

Escondido 

18 18 18 12 24 20 26 22 20 23 37 47 47 47 58 5 

University City 

18 18 18 12 24 20 26 22 20 23 37 47 47 47 58 5 

San Diego 

28 18 18 18 32 26 26 30 20 39 53 47 47 47 80 5 

Bernal / 680 

31 38 38 41 36 22 66 21 21 41 48 41 41 41 27 6 

City of Industry 

18 18 18 12 24 20 26 22 20 29 37 47 47 47 58 5 

Warm Springs 

25 22 22 14 16 10 22 11 11 11 10 19 19 19 19 7 

Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff 2007. 1 The express service between San Francisco and Los Angeles is included in the HSR forecasting model as the primary service for modal choice because the sh

result, the number of trains represented here is for express service only and does not include the many local trains that offer service between San Francisco (T

trains from Burbank or Riverside to San Francisco. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.2 Travel Conditions 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.2-29

Table 3.2-16 

Auto Ownership and Operating Costs by Category (in 2005 Dollars)

Cost Category 

Percent of 

Cost 

Cents per Mile 

Low-End (Base) 

Forecasta

High-End 

Forecastb

Fuel tax 11 2.3 3.4 

Fuel 60 12.0 18.0 

Repairs 6 1.1 1.7 

Maintenance 14 2.9 4.3 

State fees 9 1.7 2.6 

Total 100 20.0 30.0 

a Auto operating cost based on auto operating cost observed in 2005 and increasing 

with inflation only to 2030 (i.e., no real increase in costs) to represent the base, or 

low–end, forecasts. b Auto operating cost based on a 50% increase in auto operating cost between 2005 

and 2030 to represent the high-end forecasts. 

Source: Metropolitan Transportation Commission 2006.

Table 3.2-17 

One-Way Door-to-Door Trip Automobile Costs (in 2005 Dollars),

City Pair 

Cost per Trip (dollars) 

Low-End (Base) 

Forecasta

High-End 

Forecastb

Los Angeles downtown to San 

Francisco downtown 

98 137

Fresno downtown to Los Angeles 

downtown 

58 81

Los Angeles downtown to San Diego 

downtown 

38 50

Burbank (airport) to San Jose 

downtown 

74 108

Sacramento downtown to San Jose 

downtown 

23 34

a Auto operating cost based on auto operating cost observed in 2005 and 

increasing with inflation only to 2030 (i.e., no real increase in costs) to 

represent the base, or low–end, forecasts. Auto costs include parking, tolls, 

and auto operating cost. 

b

 Auto operating cost based on a 50% increase in auto operating cost between 

2005 and 2030 to represent the high-end forecasts. Auto costs include 

parking, tolls, and auto operating cost. 

Source: Cambridge Systematics 2007. 

Air Mode Characteristics 

The passenger cost of air travel is primarily determined by the available fare. Depending on the 

airport, airline, time of year, day of the week, and even certain hours of the day, the price of an air 

ticket can vary greatly. Regions with competing airports or alternative submarkets (i.e., Ontario and 

Oakland) have more fare, schedule, and airline options compared to airports with limited service 

(e.g., Fresno and Bakersfield). In California, because most air operations are scheduled to serve 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.2 Travel Conditions 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.2-30

longer distance markets, some major airports, such as San Francisco and Los Angeles, have a more 

limited choice of airlines and fare options for intra-California travel. Airports that provide more 

limited service, such as Fresno and Bakersfield, typically have only a few flights available per day and 

typically one or two airlines that serve that market. However, airports like Ontario and Oakland have 

frequent intra-California flights from a range of airlines at highly competitive fares. 

Average total air costs were calculated including access, egress, and airfare costs. The access and 

egress sum cost ranges from $15 to $31 per trip, including the cost of parking at the airport and tolls 

needed to drive to the airport. Air trips require at least one other mode to travel from a different 

location (e.g., home/office) to the airport, which may include public transit (bus or rail), taxi/shuttle, 

or private auto (may require parking or drop-off). The access and egress costs reported here are 

costs associated with driving to/from the airport, which are typically higher than the costs for public 

transit. 

A range of airfares are available that depend on time of purchase (e.g., 21-day advance purchase 

versus same-day fare), duration of visit (e.g., same-day or Saturday night stay), and departure time 

(e.g., peak versus off-peak). Table 3.2-18 summarizes the average total cost for air travel between 

city pair destinations for the low-end base (average fares for 2005) and based on the high-end 

forecast assumptions of a 50% increase in air fares between 2005 and 2030 (in 2005 dollars). No 

significant differences were found in the observed data between business and nonbusiness travel, so 

these fares are equal. As shown, airfares vary widely and can range from $153 between Burbank 

and San Jose to $263 between Sacramento and San Jose for business travel. 

Table 3.2-18 

Average Air One-Way Door-to-Door 

Trip Passenger Costs (in 2005 Dollars) 

City Pair 

Cost Per Trip (dollars) 

Low-End (Base) Forecasta High-End Forecastb 

Los Angeles downtown to San Francisco downtown 133 200 

Fresno downtown to Los Angeles downtown 175 263 

Los Angeles downtown to San Diego downtown 166 249 

Burbank (airport) to San Jose downtown 153 230 

Sacramento downtown to San Jose downtown 152 228 

a

 Based on high-end revenue and ridership forecasts, which are 50% higher in 2030 than in 2005. 

b

 Sample costs include fares, but parking, taxi fares, and other access/egress costs are not included. 

Source: Cambridge Systematics 2007. 

High-Speed Train Mode Characteristics 

Similar to air travel, the primary cost associated with HST travel is the cost of the train ticket. In 

some locations, such as LAUS and San Francisco Transbay Transit Center, the parking charges are 

$25 and contribute significantly to the overall cost of the trip. For this analysis, the fare schedule 

developed from similar assumptions used in the Business Plan were used to compare the 

representative city pairs (Table 3.2-19). However, based on experience in Asia and Europe, HST 

fares may vary the way airfares do with the time of year, day of week and duration of stay. New 

competition may also develop between the different modes that may affect HST fares. The HST 

could also offer premium and economy services, with corresponding fares, depending on the markets 

that develop. 

As with air travel, both an access fee and an egress fee ranging from $15 to $31 round trip are part 

of the HST average total costs. HST travel requires at least one mode change to access the nearest 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.2 Travel Conditions 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.2-31

HST station. Because the HST stations are generally located in the city centers, they are assumed to 

be located closer to larger population and work centers than airports. The HST line-haul travel fare 

was estimated using the fare schedule presented in the Bay Area/California High-Speed Rail Ridership 

and Revenue Forecasting Study Levels-of-Service Assumptions and Forecast Alternatives Report

(Cambridge Systematics 2007). Interregional and intraregional fares were set using a different set of 

assumptions to compete more directly with air and commuter rail, respectively. 

Table 3.2-19 

High-Speed Train One-Way Door-to-Door Trip Passenger Costs (in 2005 Dollars)a

City Pairs 

Average 

Total Cost 

(dollars)

Los Angeles downtown to San Francisco downtown 82 

Fresno downtown to Los Angeles downtown 63 

Los Angeles downtown to San Diego downtown 43 

Burbank (airport) to San Jose downtown 67 

Sacramento downtown to San Jose downtown 55 

a

 Based on fares plus parking costs, auto operating costs, and tolls paid 

to access or egress from a train station. 

Source: Cambridge Systematics 2007. 

Depending on city pair, level of state support for fare subsidies, and competition, intercity passenger 

rail would be cost-competitive with the HST. On average, given current fares for Amtrak service and 

the proposed fares for HST, conventional intercity service would cost 4 to 17% less than the HST for 

the Los Angeles to San Diego and Sacramento to San Jose city pairs listed above, respectively 

(assuming the same access and egress fees as the HST). These are the only two city pairs with 

current conventional rail service. Conventional rail would also be considerably less expensive than 

air, based on the representative city pairs. 

Cost Effects of the High-Speed Train Alternatives 

The HST alternatives could provide an overall passenger cost savings for all city pairs analyzed. On 

average, passengers could save from 22% to 87% on the HST, depending on city pair compared with 

the No Project Alternative. The HST mode is significantly less expensive than the highway mode for 

long distance travel, is cost-competitive with the highway mode for shorter distance trips between 

regions, and is always less expensive than the air mode. For all city pairs, the HST provides a pricecompetitive alternative to existing airline service and the automobile. The passenger costs would not 

vary noticeably between the HST Alignment Alternatives. 

3.2.4 High-Speed Train Network Alternatives and Station Location Options Comparison 

Travel conditions do not vary considerably between the different HST Alignment Alternatives. Within 

each corridor, the HST Alignment Alternatives serve similar potential markets and would have the same 

infrastructure requirements. HST travel time, connectivity, and passenger costs would vary with the HST 

Network Alternatives. This section discusses the relative travel condition differences between the HST 

Network Alternatives and station location options. 

The Altamont Pass network alternatives include a potential station at Tracy and the Tri-Valley (at 

Livermore or Pleasanton) and place Merced on the San Francisco to Los Angeles segment of the HST 

system, which would result in a higher frequency of service to/from Merced. The Tracy station would 

serve other nearby Central Valley communities (such as Manteca), and the Tri-Valley station would serve 

not only the Livermore, Pleasanton, and Dublin area but would also be the nearest station for many cities 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.2 Travel Conditions 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.2-32

in Contra Costa County. The Altamont Pass network alternatives would therefore improve travel 

conditions to these markets. 

The Pacheco Pass alignment includes a potential station at Gilroy (or Morgan Hill), and Pacheco Pass 

network alternatives would have more frequent service to San Jose. The populations that would be 

served by the Gilroy station would have improved travel conditions (including shorter access times and 

access costs) with the Pacheco Pass network alternatives. The potential Gilroy/Morgan Hill station would 

have impact on travel conditions for a large area because, in addition to serving Southern Santa Clara 

County, it would also be the most accessible station location for serving the Santa Cruz, 

Monterey/Carmel, and Salinas populations. 

The selection of an HST network alternative to serve the Bay Area cities will consider many factors, 

including the ability to meet the purpose and need of the HST system in the Bay area. This Program 

EIR/EIS evaluates potential service to the Bay Area along the San Francisco Peninsula and/or potential 

service along the East Bay. If service to San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose were pursued, the 

number of intermodal connections would be greatly increased. However, if only one or two of these 

cities were directly served by the proposed HST system, service to each of the remaining termini stations 

would be greatly increased. However, the access times and access costs would increase significantly, 

and the competitiveness of the new mode on the part or parts of the Bay not served would also be 

reduced. For example, if the East Bay is not directly served, all trains bound for the Bay Area would 

terminate in downtown San Francisco and/or San Jose. However, there would be no HST link to directly 

serve Oakland or the Oakland Airport. Potential HST passengers from much of the East Bay would have 

to either use the Capitol Corridor, mass transit, or drive to San Francisco, San Jose, or the peninsula to 

use the HST service. 

Potential Station Locations

• For service to downtown San Francisco, the Transbay Transit Center and the 4th and King Station 

were selected for further evaluation. The 4th and King Station is the existing terminus for the 

Caltrain commuter rail service. This station site (adjacent to AT&T Park) is well connected to the 

San Francisco Muni system but stops more than 1 mi short of the financial district of downtown 

San Francisco and does not connect to BART. The Transbay Transit Center would offer 

significantly greater connectivity to San Francisco and the greater Bay Area than the existing 4th

and King site because of its location in the heart of the downtown San Francisco financial district, 

where many potential HST passengers could walk to the station. In addition, the Transbay 

Transit Center would serve as the transit hub for all of the major services to downtown San 

Francisco, with the advantage of direct connections to BART and San Francisco Muni. The 4th

and King Station would have about a 2.5-minute shorter line-haul travel time to San Francisco 

than the Transbay Transit Center because the trains would travel at relatively slow speeds 

between 4th and King and the Transbay Transit Center, a distance of 1.2 mi (1.9 km). However, 

because the Transbay Transit Center would offer greater connectivity to San Francisco and the 

greater Bay Area than the existing 4th and King site, total travel times to downtown destinations 

via the Transbay Transit Center are expected to be superior. 

• The West Oakland station and the 12th Street/City Center station were selected for further 

consideration for the Oakland terminus station. Both of these potential stations would directly 

connect with BART, and both would have good freeway access. The 12th Street/City Center 

station would have superior connectivity because it is located in the heart of downtown Oakland, 

where many potential HST passengers could walk to the station. The 12th Street/City Center 

BART station is also a transfer station, providing greater connectivity to the regional rail transit 

system. 

• A potential station to serve San Mateo County would be located either at Redwood City or Palo 

Alto. Both would be multimodal stations at existing Caltrain station locations. The Palo Alto 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.2 Travel Conditions 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.2-33

station would be a stop for the Caltrain express services and therefore would have better 

connectivity to the regional commuter service and to the peninsula. Altamont Pass options to 

San Francisco via the Dumbarton Crossing could serve only the Redwood City station site. 

• A potential station to serve southern Alameda County would be located at Union City, Shinn, or 

Fremont (Warm Springs). Both Union City and Fremont station location options would offer a 

high level of connectivity. The Union City station would connect to BART, the Capitol Corridor, 

and AC Transit, whereas the Fremont (Warm Springs) station would have good access to the I880 freeway and a future BART extension. 

• South Santa Clara County potentially would be served by a station at either Gilroy or Morgan Hill. 

Both of these two potential stations would be at Caltrain commuter rail station locations. The 

Gilroy Station is about 10 mi (16 km) south of Morgan Hill and therefore provides better 

connectivity, travel times, and lower access costs to the Santa Cruz, Monterey/Carmel, and 

Salinas markets. 

• Diridon Station in downtown San Jose would be a multimodal hub maximizing connectivity to 

downtown San Jose and the Southern Bay Area. Diridon Station would serve Caltrain, ACE 

Commuter Rail, the Capitol Corridor, Amtrak, VTA buses and light rail, and a possible link to 

BART. None of the three airport stations would be in the airport terminals, but each would 

permit easy access by people movers or shuttles (at SFO, BART currently provides a direct 

connection from the Millbrae Caltrain Station to the SFO international terminal). 

• A potential station to serve the Tri-Valley would be located at either Pleasanton or Livermore. 

The Pleasanton station would be located at the Pleasanton BART Station or at the existing 

Pleasanton ACE station along Bernal Road (I-680/Bernal Road). The Pleasanton (BART) station 

would maximize connectivity with the BART, whereas the I-680/Bernal Road location would link 

to the existing ACE service. Both locations would provide convenient freeway access. A potential 

station in Livermore would be located on I-580, in downtown Livermore, or at Greenville Road. 

The Livermore (Downtown) option would provide direct connectivity with ACE commuter service. 

Each of these options would have good freeway access; however, the Pleasanton station location 

options are more centrally located in the Tri-Valley and more accessible to Contra Costa County. 

The Greenville Road station site has the least connectivity and accessibility. As a part of the 

regional rail planning efforts, the region is investigating the possibility of extending BART 

Livermore. 

• Two potential sites are evaluated to serve Tracy: a potential downtown station and the existing 

ACE station. The downtown station maximizes connectivity with downtown Tracy, whereas the 

existing ACE station would provide a multimodal link to the existing commuter rail service. As 

part of the regional rail planning effort, the region is assuming that if HST were to provide direct 

service to downtown Tracy, ACE would be moved to this location as well. 

• Millbrae (SFO) and Oakland Airport (Coliseum/BART) are two potential airport stations that would 

have direct connections to local and regional commuter rail services and would minimize potential 

travel times and costs for HST passengers who would use the trains for access to the airports. 

• Two potential station location options are evaluated to serve Modesto: a potential downtown 

station on the UPRR rail alignment and the existing Amtrak Briggsmore station on the BNSF 

alignment. The downtown station maximizes connectivity to downtown Modesto and provides 

convenient access to SR 99, whereas the Amtrak Briggsmore Station is about 5 mi (8 km) east of 

downtown Modesto. The selection of the alignment between Stockton and Modesto would 

determine the station site for Modesto. 

• To serve Merced, potential station location options are evaluated at downtown Merced along the 

UPRR alignment and at Castle AFB. The downtown station is located near the city center and 

transit hub of Merced, has good access to SR 99, and would have the higher level of connectivity 

of the two locations. The Castle AFB site is about 7 mi (11 km) from downtown Merced but 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.2 Travel Conditions 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.2-34

would provide easy access to the developing University of California, Merced campus via a new 

highway alignment along Bellevue Avenue. 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.3-1

3.3 Air Quality and Global Climate Change 

This section describes the potential effects on state and regional air quality under the No Project 

Alternative and proposed HST Alignment Alternatives, using the existing and No Project conditions for 

comparison. Included in this section is an overview of the air basins studied and a description of the air 

pollutants and conditions of these air basins. 

Air pollution is a general term that refers to one or more chemical substances that degrade the quality of 

the atmosphere. Eight air pollutants have been identified by the EPA as being of concern nationwide: 

carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur oxides (SOX), hydrocarbons (HC), oxides of nitrogen (NOX), ozone (O3), 

particulate matter 10 microns in diameter or less (PM10), particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter or 

less (PM2.5), and lead. Except for HC (also referred to as total organic gases [TOG]), all of these 

pollutants (NOX in the form of nitrogen dioxide [NO2] and SOX in the form of sulfur dioxide [SO2]) are 

collectively referred to as criteria pollutants. Criteria pollutants are pollutants that have standards. 

Along with criteria pollutants, pollutants that are considered greenhouse gases (GHGs) are also of 

concern. GHGs are gases that trap heat in the atmosphere. GHGs include water vapor, carbon dioxide 

(CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), halogenated fluorocarbons (HCFCs), O3, perfluorinated 

carbons (PFCs), and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCsCO2 and N2O are the two GHGs released in greatest 

quantities from mobile sources burning gasoline and diesel fuel). Based on a recent FHWA memo from 

their headquarters to their division offices, the transportation sector directly accounted for approximately 

33% of U.S. CO2 emissions and about 28% of total U.S. greenhouse emissions (American Association of 

State Highway and Transportation Officials 2008) in 2005. Transportation is the fastest-growing source of 

U.S. GHGs and the largest end-use source of CO2, which is the most prevalent GHG. 

GHGs are necessary to life as we know it because they keep the planet’s surface warmer than it 

otherwise would be. This is referred to as the greenhouse effect. As concentrations of GHGs are 

increasing, however, the Earth’s temperature is increasing. Many scientists believe that recently recorded 

increases in the earth’s average temperature are the result of increases in concentrations of GHGs. 

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Aeronautics 

and Space Administration (NASA) data, the Earth's average surface temperature has increased by about 

1.2 to 1.4oF in the last 100 years. Eleven of the last twelve years rank among the twelve warmest years 

on record (since 1850), with the warmest two years being 1998 and 2005. Most of the warming in recent 

decades is very likely the result of human activities. Other aspects of the climate are also changing, such 

as rainfall patterns, snow and ice cover, and sea level. These changes are referred to as global climate 

change. 

3.3.1 Regulatory Requirements and Methods of Evaluation 

A. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 

Federal Regulations

Air quality is regulated at the federal level under the CAA of 1970 and the Final Conformity Rule (40 

CFR Parts 51 and 93). The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (Public Law [PL] 101–549, November 

15, 1990) direct the EPA to implement strong environmental policies and regulations that will ensure 

better air quality. According to Title I, Section 101, Paragraph F of the Clean Air Act Amendments 

(42 USC § 7401 et seq.): “No federal agency may approve, accept, or fund any transportation plan, 

program, or project unless such plan, program or project has been found to conform to any 

applicable SIP in effect under this act.” Title 1, Section 101, Paragraph F of the amendments, 

amends Section 176(c) of the CAA to define conformity as follows: conformity to an implementation 

plan’s purpose of eliminating or reducing the severity and number of violations of the National 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.03 Air Quality 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.3-2

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and achieving expeditious attainment of such standards; 

such activities will not cause any of the following occurrences. 

• Cause or contribute to any new violation of any NAAQS in any area. 

• Increase the frequency or severity of any existing violation of any NAAQS in any area. 

• Delay timely attainment of any NAAQS or any required interim emissions reductions or other 

milestones in any area. (42 USC § 7506[c][1].) 

Federal Climate Change Policy 

According to the EPA, “the United States government has established a comprehensive policy to 

address climate change” that includes slowing the growth of emissions; strengthening science, 

technology, and institutions; and enhancing international cooperation. To implement this policy, “the 

Federal government is using voluntary and incentive-based programs to reduce emissions and has 

established programs to promote climate technology and science.” The federal government’s goal is 

to reduce the GHG intensity (a measurement of GHG emissions per unit of economic activity) of the 

American economy by 18% over the 10-year period from 2002 to 2012. In addition, the EPA 

administers multiple programs that encourage voluntary GHG reductions, including “ENERGY STAR,” 

“Climate Leaders,” and methane voluntary programs. However, at this time there are no adopted 

federal plans, policies, regulations, or laws directly regulating GHG emissions. 

State Regulations

Air quality is regulated at the state level by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the agency 

designated to prepare the SIP required by the CAA under the California Clean Air Act of 1988 

(Assembly Bill [AB] 2595) and other provisions of the California Health and Safety Code (Health and 

Safety Code § 39000 et seq.). California’s Clean Air Act (CCAA) requires all districts designated as 

nonattainment for any pollutant to “adopt and enforce rules and regulations to achieve and maintain 

the state and federal ambient air quality standards in all areas affected by emission sources under 

their jurisdiction.”

The responsibility for controlling air pollution in California is shared by 35 local or regional air 

pollution control and air quality management districts, CARB, and EPA. The districts issue permits for 

industrial pollutant sources and adopt air quality management plans and rules. CARB establishes the 

state ambient air quality standards, adopts and enforces emission standards for mobile sources, 

adopts standards and suggested control measures for toxic air contaminants, provides technical 

support to the districts, oversees district compliance, approves local air quality plans, and prepares 

and submits the SIP to EPA. EPA establishes NAAQS, sets emission standards for certain mobile 

sources (airplanes and locomotives), oversees the state air programs, and reviews and approves the 

SIP. CARB inventories sources of air pollution in California’s air basins and is required to update the 

inventory triennially, starting in 1998 (Health and Safety Code §§ 39607 and 30607.3). CARB also 

identifies air basins that are affected by transported air pollution (Health and Safety Code § 39610; 

17 C.C.R. Part 70500). 

On June 1, 2005, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-3-05. The goal of this 

executive order is to reduce California’s GHG emissions to: 1) 2000 levels by 2010, 2) 1990 levels by 

the 2020 and 3) 80% below the 1990 levels by the year 2050. In 2006, this goal was further 

reinforced with the passage of Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. 

AB 32 sets the same overall GHG emissions reduction goals while further mandating that CARB create 

a plan, which includes market mechanisms, and implement rules to achieve “real, quantifiable, costeffective reductions of greenhouse gases.” Executive Order S-20-06 further directs state agencies to 

begin implementing AB 32, including the recommendations made by the state’s Climate Action Team. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.03 Air Quality 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.3-3

Climate change and GHG reduction is also a concern at the federal level; however, at this time, no 

legislation or regulations have been enacted specifically addressing GHG emissions reductions and 

climate change. 

Assembly Bill 32, the California Climate Solutions Act of 2006 (Health and Safety Code § 38500 et 

seq.) 

In September 2006, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed AB 32, the California Climate Solutions 

Act of 2006, into law. AB 32 was intended to effectively end the scientific debate in California over 

the existence and consequences of global warming. In order to be effective, measures to reduce GHG 

will have to occur in connection with similar reductions by other states and countries. Through AB 32, 

California is attempting to take on a leadership role in the abatement of climate change and offer a 

model for other states and countries to reduce GHG emissions. In general, AB 32 directs CARB to do 

the following: 

• On or before June 30, 2007, publicly make available a list of discrete early action GHG emission 

reduction measures that can be implemented prior to the adoption of the statewide GHG limit 

and the measures required to achieve compliance with the statewide limit; 

• By January 1, 2008, determine the statewide levels of GHG emissions in 1990, and adopt a 

statewide GHG emissions limit that is equivalent to the 1990 level (an approximately 25% 

reduction in existing statewide GHG emissions); 

• On or before January 1, 2010, adopt regulations to implement the early action GHG emission 

reduction measures; 

• On or before January 1, 2011, adopt quantifiable, verifiable, and enforceable emission reduction 

measures by regulation that will achieve the statewide GHG emissions limit by 2020, to become 

operative on January 1, 2012, at the latest. The emission reduction measures may include direct 

emission reduction measures, alternative compliance mechanisms, and potential monetary and 

non-monetary incentives that reduce GHG emissions from any sources or categories of sources 

as CARB finds necessary to achieve the statewide GHG emissions limit; and 

• Monitor compliance with and enforce any emission reduction measure adopted pursuant to AB 

32. 

AB 32 also takes into account the relative contribution of each source or source category to protect 

adverse impacts on small businesses and others by requiring CARB to recommend a minimum 

threshold of GHG emissions below which emissions reduction requirements would not apply. AB 32 

also allows the governor to adjust the deadlines mentioned above for individual regulations or the 

entire state to the earliest feasible date in the event of extraordinary circumstances, catastrophic 

events, or threat of significant economic harm. 

Governor’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (Executive Order #S-01-07) 

Executive Order #S-01-07 establishes a statewide goal to reduce the carbon intensity of California’s 

transportation fuels by at least 10% by 2020 through establishment of a Low Carbon Fuel Standard. 

The Low Carbon Fuel Standard shall be incorporated into the State Alternative Fuels Plan required by 

AB 1007 and is one of the proposed discrete early action GHG reduction measures identified by CARB 

pursuant to AB 32. 

Senate Bill 97 (SB 97) 

Senate Bill 97 was signed by the governor on August 24, 2007. This bill provides that in an 

environmental impact report, negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or other document 

required by CEQA for either transportation projects funded under the Highway Safety, Traffic 

Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006, or for projects funded under the Disaster 

Preparedness and Flood Prevention Bond Act of 2006, the failure to analyze adequately the effects of 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.03 Air Quality 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.3-4

GHG emissions otherwise required to be reduced pursuant to regulations adopted under the Global 

Warming Solutions Act of 2006 does not create a cause of action for a violation of CEQA. The bill 

provides that this provision shall apply retroactively for any of the above documents that are not final 

and shall be repealed on January 1, 2010. 

The bill requires the Office of Planning and Research (OPR), by July 1, 2009, to prepare, develop, 

and transmit to the resources agency guidelines for the feasible mitigation of GHG emissions or the 

effects of GHG emissions, as required by CEQA, including, but not limited to, effects associated with 

transportation or energy consumption. The resources agency would be required to certify and adopt 

those guidelines by January 1, 2010. The OPR is required to periodically update the guidelines to 

incorporate new information or criteria established by the CARB pursuant to the California Global 

Warming Solutions Act of 2006. 

Climate Action Program at Caltrans 

In December 2006, the California Department of Transportation, Business, Transportation, and 

Housing Agency, issued a Climate Action Program. The goal of the Climate Action Program is to 

promote clean and energy efficient transportation, and provide guidance for mainstreaming energy 

and climate change issues into business operations. The overall approach to lower fuel consumption 

and CO2 from transportation is twofold: (1) reduce congestion and improve efficiency of 

transportation systems through smart land use, operational improvements, and Intelligent 

Transportation Systems; and (2) institutionalize energy efficiency and GHG emission reduction 

measures and technology into planning, project development, operations, and maintenance of 

transportation facilities, fleets, buildings, and equipment. 

The reasoning underlying the Climate Action Program is the conclusion that “the most effective 

approach to addressing GHG reduction, in the short-to-medium term, is strong technology policy and 

market mechanisms to encourage innovations. Rapid development and availability of alternative fuels 

and vehicles, increased efficiency in new cars and trucks (light and heavy duty), and super clean 

fuels are the most direct approach to reducing GHG emissions from motor vehicles (emission 

performance standards and fuel or carbon performance standards).” Caltrans asserts that the state 

must maintain a consistent GHG reduction policy across all agencies to create a coordinated climate 

change program. 

Executive Order #S-3-05 

Executive Order #S-3-05, signed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on June 1, 2005, calls for a 

reduction in GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and for an 80% reduction in GHG emissions to 

below 1990 levels by 2050. Executive Order #S-3-05 also calls for the California Environmental 

Protection Agency (CalEPA) to prepare biennial science reports on the potential impact of continued 

global warming on certain sectors of the California economy. The first of these reports, Scenarios of 

Climate Change in California: An Overview (Climate Scenarios report), was published in February 

2006 (California Climate Change Center 2006). 

National and State Ambient Air Quality Standards

As required by the CAA Amendments of 1970 (PL 91-064, December 31, 1970) and the CAA 

Amendment of 1977 (PL 95-95, August 7, 1977), EPA has established NAAQS for the following air 

pollutants: CO, O3, NO2, PM10, SOX, and lead. CARB has also established standards for these 

pollutants. Recent legislation requires CARB to develop and adopt regulations to reduce GHGs (AB 

1493, 2002). The federal and state governments have both adopted health-based standards for 

pollutants. For some pollutants, the national and state standards are very similar; for other 

pollutants, the state standards are more stringent. The differences in the standards are generally the 

result of the different health effect studies considered during the standard-setting process and how 

these studies were interpreted. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.03 Air Quality 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.3-5

Table 3.3-1 lists the federal and state standards. The federal primary standards are intended to 

protect the public health with an adequate margin of safety. The federal secondary standards are 

intended to protect the nation’s welfare and account for air-pollutant impacts on soil, water, visibility, 

vegetation, and other aspects of the general welfare. Areas that violate these standards are 

designated nonattainment areas. Areas that once violated the standards but now meet the standards 

are classified as maintenance areas. Classification of each area under the federal standards is done 

by EPA based on state recommendations and after an extensive review of monitored data. 

Classification under the state standards is done by CARB. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.03 Air Quality 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.3-6

Table 3.3-1 

State and National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

Pollutant 

Averaging 

Time 

California Standardsa

 Federal Standardsb

Concentrationc Methodd Primaryc,e Secondaryc,f,g Methodg

O3 1 hour 0.09 ppm 

(180 μg/m3

) 

Ultraviolet 

photometry 

N/A Same as 

primary 

standard 

Ultraviolet 

photometry 

8 hours 0.070 ppm 

(137 μg/m3

) 

0.08 ppm 

(157 μg/m3)

h

PM10 24 hours 50 μg/m3 Gravimetric 

or beta 

attenuation 

150 μg/m3

 Same as 

primary 

standard 

Inertial 

separation 

and 

gravimetric 

analysis 

Annual 

arithmetic mean 

20 μg/m3 N/A 

PM2.5 24 hours No separate 

state standard 

Gravimetric 

or beta 

attenuation 

35 μg/m3

 Same as 

primary 

standard 

Inertial 

separation 

and 

gravimetric 

analysis 

Annual 

arithmetic mean 

12 μg/m3 15 μg/m3

CO 8 hours 9.0 ppm 

(10 mg/m3

) 

NDIR 9 ppm 

(10 mg/m3) 

None NDIR 

1 hour 20 ppm 

(23 mg/m3

) 

35 ppm 

(40 mg/m3) 

8 hour (Lake 

Tahoe) 

6 ppm 

(7 mg/m3

) 

N/A 

NO2 Annual 

arithmetic mean 

N/A Gas phase 

chemilumincescence 

0.053 ppm 

(100 μg/m3

) 

Same as 

primary 

standard 

Gas phase 

chemilumincescence 1 hour 0.25 ppm 

(470 μg/m3

) 

N/A 

Leadi 30 day 

average 

1.5 μg/m3 Atomic 

absorption 

N/A N/A High volume 

sampler and 

atomic 

absorption Calendar 

quarter 

N/A 1.5 μg/m3 Same as 

primary 

standard 

SO2 Annual 

arithmetic mean 

N/A Ultraviolet 

Fluorescence 

0.030 ppm 

(80 μg/m3

) 

N/A Spectrophotometry 

(Pararosoaniline method) 24 hours 0.04 ppm 

(105 μg/m3

) 

0.14 ppm 

(365 μg/m3) 

N/A 

3 hours N/A N/A 0.5 ppm 

(1300 μg/m3

) 

1 hour 0.25 ppm 

(655 μg/m3

) 

N/A N/A 

Visibility 

reducing 

particles 

8 hours 

(10 a.m. to 

6 p.m., Pacific 

Standard Time) 

In sufficient amount to produce 

an extinction coefficient of 0.23 

per km-visibility of 10 mi (16 km) 

or more (0.07–30 mi [.011–

48 km] or more for Lake Tahoe) 

due to particles when the relative 

humidity is less than 70%. 

Method: Beta attenuation and 

transmittance through filter tape. 

No federal standards 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.03 Air Quality 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.3-7

Pollutant 

Averaging 

Time 

California Standardsa

 Federal Standardsb

Concentrationc Methodd Primaryc,e Secondaryc,f,g Methodg

Sulfates 24 hour 25 μg/m3 

Hydrogen 

sulfide 

1 hour 0.03 ppm 

(42 μg/m3

) 

Ultraviolet 

fluorescence 

Vinyl 

Chlorideh

24 hour 0.01 ppm 

(26 μg/m3) 

Gas chromatography 

μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter. 

mg/m3

 = milligrams per cubic meter. 

N/A = not available. 

NDIR = non-dispersive infrared photometry. 

ppm = parts per million. 

a

 California standards for O3, CO (except Lake Tahoe), SO2 (1 and 24 hour), NO2, suspended particulate matter-PM10, PM2.5, and 

visibility reducing particles are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. California 

ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 CCR. 

b

 National standards (other than O3, particulate matter, and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic mean) are not to 

be exceeded more than once a year. The O3 standard is attained when the fourth highest 8-hour concentration in a year, 

averaged over 3 years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24-hour standard is attained when the expected 

number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 μg/m3

 is equal to or less than one. For PM2.5, 

the 24-hour standard is attained when 98% of the daily concentrations, averaged over 3 years, are equal to or less than the 

standards. 

c

 Concentration expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses are based on a 

reference temperature of 25°C (77°F) and a reference pressure of 760 mm (30 in) of mercury. Most measurements of air quality 

are to be corrected to a reference temperature of 25°C (77°F) and reference pressure measurements of 760 mm (30 in) of 

mercury (1,013.2 millibar [1 atmosphere]); ppm in this table refers to ppm volume, or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas. 

d

 Any equivalent procedure that can be shown to the satisfaction of CARB to give equivalent results at or near the level of the air 

quality standard may be used. 

e

 National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public health. 

f National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated 

adverse effects of a pollutant. 

g

 Reference method as described by EPA. An equivalent method of measurement may be used but must have a “consistent 

relationship to the reference method” and must be approved by EPA. 

h

 CARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as toxic air contaminants with no threshold level of exposure for adverse health effects 

determined. These actions allow for the implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient concentrations specified 

for these pollutants. 

Source: California Air Resources Board 2006. 

B. METHOD OF EVALUATION OF IMPACTS 

Pollutants

Pollutants that can be traced principally to transportation sources and are thus relevant to the 

evaluation of the project alternatives are CO, O3 precursors (NOX and TOG), PM10, PM2.5, and CO2. 

Because high CO levels are mostly the result of congested traffic conditions combined with adverse 

meteorological conditions, high CO concentrations generally occur within 300 ft (91 m) to 600 ft 

(183 m) of heavily traveled roadways. Concentrations of CO on a regional and localized or 

microscale basis can consequently be predicted appropriately. 

As discussed below in the affected environment section, TOG and NOX emissions from mobile sources 

are of concern primarily because of their role as precursors in the formation of O3 and particulate 

matter. O3 is formed through a series of reactions that occur in the atmosphere in the presence of 

sunlight over a period of hours. Because the reactions are slow and occur as the pollutants are 

diffusing downwind, elevated O3 levels are often found many miles from sources of the precursor 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.03 Air Quality 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.3-8

pollutants. The impacts of TOG and NOX emissions are, therefore, generally examined on a regional 

level. CO2 emission burdens, because of their global impact, are currently expressed only on the 

statewide level by CARB and EPA. In this analysis, therefore, CO2 impacts are discussed on the 

statewide level. It is appropriate to predict concentrations of PM10 and PM2.5 on a regional and 

localized basis. 

Pollutant Burdens

The air quality analysis for this Program EIR/EIS focuses on the potential statewide, regional, and 

localized impacts on air quality. The regional pollutant burdens were estimated based on changes 

that would occur, including the following, under each of the alternatives. 

• Highway VMT. 

• Number of plane operations. 

• Number of train movements (proposed HST and existing LOSSAN system). 

• Power requirements for the proposed HST system. 

Localized air quality impacts were estimated based on level of service information and volume to 

capacity ratios for intercity freeway segments. 

A comparison of the 2005 conditions to the 2030 No Project conditions illustrates the expected trends 

in air quality. Currently, CARB has not released 2030 emission inventory information. For the 

purposes of this analysis, emission burdens were projected to 2030, based on CARB emission burden 

data from 2005–2020. The potential impacts from proposed alternatives were then added to the 

2030 conditions. Changes in VMT for on-road mobile sources (vehicles) and for off-road mobile 

sources (number of plane operations and train movements) were estimated for each of the 

alternatives. Changes in emissions of stationary sources (electrical power generators) were also 

assessed. 

Highway VMT: On-road pollutant burdens were calculated as a ratio of baseline VMT to estimated 

VMT changes under each alternative. Although vehicular speeds affect emission rates, the potential 

basinwide speed changes were considered too small to affect overall emission estimates; thus, 

changes in future on-road mobile source emission burdens for the project were based solely on VMT 

changes and did not consider speed. 

Number of Plane Operations: The FAA’s Emission and Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS) Version 6 

is used to estimate airplane emissions. The EDMS estimates the emissions generated from a 

specified number of landing and take-off (LTO) cycles. Along with the emissions from the planes 

themselves, emissions generated from associated ground maintenance requirements are also 

included. Average plane emissions are calculated based on a typical 737 aircraft. The pollutant 

burdens generated by the LTOs under each alternative were added to CARB’s off-road mobile sources 

(planes) emission budgets for each air basin to determine the potential impacts of the alternatives. 

To determine the number of plane trips potentially replaced from the No Project Alternative daily by 

the HST Alignment Alternatives, the following calculations were performed using a representative 

HST Alignment Alternatives1

. The number of daily air trips that could be removed by the proposed 

HST system (77,682) was divided by an average number of passengers per flight (101.25). The 

resulting number (38.50) represents the number of flights per day that could potentially be removed 

by the proposed HST system. (See Chapter 2, “Alternatives,” for definition of system alternatives.)

 

1

 Based on revised low-end ridership forecast developed by Cambridge Systematics June 11, 2007. Also refer to Chapter 2, 

“Alternatives,” and Section 2.3.3.C, Travel Demand and Ridership Forecasts. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.03 Air Quality 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.3-9

77,682 trips = 77,682 flying passengers (1 trip = 1 takeoff and 

1 landing) 

1 flight = 101.25 passengers (135 seats X 75% load factor, as per 

Table 3.2-3 in the System Definition Report, [Parsons Brinckerhoff 

2002]) 

Therefore, 

 (77,682 passengers/day) / (101.25 passengers/flight) = 38.5 flights/day 

Number of Train Movements: It has been determined that there will be no increase in feeder train 

service to the proposed HST service; therefore, there are expected to be no changes in train 

movements due to the HST Alignment Alternatives. 

Power Requirements: In addition to the on-road and off-road emission burdens, emissions resulting 

from the power generated to run the HST system as a whole were estimated and included in the 

emission burden of the HST Alignment Alternatives. Emission estimates are based on British thermal 

unit (BTU) requirements calculated in the energy analysis for the project (Section 3.5). BTU emission 

factors are based on energy usage information from the California Energy Demand 2006–2016, Staff 

Energy Demand Forecast (California Energy Commission, Revised September 2005); California Air 

Resources Board , Emission Inventory Data, Conserving Energy and Preserving the Environment: The 

Role of Public Transportation (Shapiro et al. 2002); and the Transportation Energy Data Book (U.S. 

Department of Energy 2006). 

Pollutant burdens generated by on-road (vehicles), off-road (planes, trains), and stationary (electric 

power generation) sources were combined and compared to the No Project Alternative and to the 

HST Alignment Alternatives. The HST system will be powered by the state’s electricity grid. Because 

the grid will supply the power, and no dedicated generating facilities are proposed, no source 

facilities can be identified. Emission changes from power generation can therefore be predicted on a 

statewide level only. In addition, because of the state requirement that an increasing fraction of 

electricity generated for the state’s power portfolio come from renewable energy sources, the 

emissions generated for the HST system are expected to be lower in the future as compared to 

emissions generated based on the state’s current power portfolio. 

C. CEQA SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA / PROJECT RATING SCHEME 

Under CEQA, impacts on air quality would be considered significant if the project would: 

• Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. 

• Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality 

violation. 

• Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project 

region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard 

(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). 

• Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. 

• Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. 

To determine if the project has significant air quality impacts as defined by CEQA, the relevance of 

the potential emission changes was assessed from a total pollutant burden and percentage change 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.03 Air Quality 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.3-10

compared to the No Project Alternative in the affected air basins and statewide. Depending on each 

air basin’s attainment status, the predicted differences were ranked as a high (+ or -), medium (+ or 

-), or low (+ or -) impact. The ranking of high, medium, or low was based on the potential 

magnitude of the emission changes compared to EPA’s General Conformity threshold levels for 

nonattainment and maintenance areas and the No Project Alternative emission inventory (for on-road 

sources, planes, and trains) for each air basin. 

This assessment is based on the total pollutant burden of an area under the No Project Alternative 

and the change in emissions estimated under a proposed alternative. Both positive and negative 

impacts were considered. A positive (+) impact indicates a potential benefit (i.e., a decrease in 

emissions) to an air basin for a specific pollutant; a negative (-) impact indicates a potential 

detriment (i.e., an increase in emissions) to an air basin. 

The following factors were used to rate the potential effects of each proposed project alternative: 

• The threshold values provided in EPA’s Conformity Rule (Table 3.3-2) that determine when a 

detailed conformity analysis is required for a proposed federal project located in a nonattainment 

or maintenance area along with CEQA significance thresholds. 

• The Conformity Rule’s definition (40 CFR Part 55.852) of a regionally significant project, which is 

one that would increase emissions of an applicable pollutant in a nonattainment or maintenance 

area by 10% or more. 

• CARB’s emission inventories, which are the estimated amounts of pollutants emitted into the 

atmosphere in 2030 (from the growth projections based on 2005-2020 CARB data) in each air 

basin from major stationary, areawide, and natural source categories. 

For the purpose of this analysis, a project alternative is considered to cause a low impact for a 

pollutant when it is estimated to increase or decrease the emissions of that pollutant in an air basin 

by an amount less than the CEQA significance threshold or the appropriate conformity threshold 

value. A project alternative is considered to cause a medium impact when it is estimated to increase 

or decrease emissions by an amount greater than the CEQA significance threshold or the appropriate 

conformity threshold value but less than 10% of the total emissions generated in the basin. A 

project alternative is considered to cause a high impact when it is estimated to increase or decrease 

emissions by an amount greater than 10% of the total emissions generated in the basin. 

Changes in the amounts of CO2 emitted as a result of the project alternatives were estimated on a 

statewide basis. These estimates were based on the estimated changes in fuel use and electrical 

energy production associated with the HST Alignment Alternatives. In light of the substantial GHG 

emission reductions goal established by the State Legislature to mitigate the significant adverse 

environmental effects of global climate change, the following global climate change significance 

threshold is used for this analysis. This threshold has been identified for the purposes of this EIS/EIR 

only. 

• The project’s incremental contribution to global climate change would be considered cumulatively 

significant if the GHG emissions generated by the proposed project are not consistent with 

California’s achievement of the reductions required by AB 32. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.03 Air Quality 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.3-11

Table 3.3-2 

Threshold Values Used to Determine Impact Significance 

Pollutant Area’s Attainment Status 

Conformity Rule’s 

Significant Impact 

Thresholds in Tons (Metric 

Tons)/Year 

CEQA Impact 

Thresholds in 

Tons (Metric 

tons)/Year 

O3 (VOCs or NOX) Nonattainment—serious 50 (45) 10 (9) 

 Nonattainment—severe 25 (23) 10 (9) 

 Nonattainment—extreme 10 (9) 10 (9) 

Nonattainment—outside an O3

transport region 

100 (91) 10 (9) 

 Nonattainment—

moderate/marginal inside an O3

transport region 

50/100 (45/91) 

(VOC/NOX) 

10 (9) 

 NOX maintenance 100 (91) 10 (9) 

VOC maintenance—outside O3

transport region 

100 (91) 10 (9) 

VOC maintenance—inside O3

transport region 

50 (45) 10 (9) 

CO Nonattainment—all 100 (91) 100 (91) 

 Maintenance 100 (91) 100 (91) 

PM10/PM2.5 Nonattainment—moderate 100 (91) / 100 (91) 27 (25) / 10 (9) 

 Nonattainment—serious 70 (64) / 100 (91) 27 (25) / 10 (9) 

Maintenance 100 (91) / 100 (91) 27 (25) / 10 (9) 

To quantify a project’s impact on local pollutant levels, a screening analysis was conducted based on 

overall traffic volumes and projected changes in V/C ratios and level of service estimates. Per state 

and national guidelines (California Department of Transportation 1997), baseline intersection level of 

service estimates of D or below that would degrade because of a project have the potential to affect 

local air quality. Similarly, volume increases of greater than 5% could potentially impact local air 

quality levels. The traffic analyses determined which roadways would experience an impact (positive 

or negative) under the project alternatives. 

For this level of analysis, however, detailed intersection information has not been generated. Rather, 

traffic screenlines have been developed. Screenlines describe defined segments of a roadway that 

were selected to reasonably represent the routes affected by the proposed alternatives, as discussed 

in detail in Section 3.1, “Traffic, Transit, Circulation, and Parking.” The estimated traffic volume 

generated or reduced by the HST Alignment Alternatives was added to No Project traffic volumes and 

expressed as overall screenline volumes (typical values based on averages over time), level of 

service, and V/C ratios. These factors were compared to No Project values, and locations with 

potentially high impacts were identified. The screenlines do not include an analysis of intersections 

and are therefore not detailed enough to be used for an air quality intersection screening analysis. 

However, the screenline numbers provide a general idea of the project’s impact on the roadway 

network. Based on these numbers, general potential impacts on the local roadway network for each 

of the alternatives are discussed below. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.03 Air Quality 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.3-12

3.3.2 Affected Environment 

A. STUDY AREA DEFINED 

California is divided into 15 air basins (17 CCR § 60100 et seq.). Each has unique terrain, 

meteorology, and emission sources. This analysis has been structured to estimate the potential 

impacts on the two air basins directly affected by the proposed alternatives, as illustrated in 

Figure 3.3-1 and statewide impacts. The following basins are considered in this study: 

• San Francisco Bay Area. 

• San Joaquin Valley. 

The previous statewide program EIR/EIS studied the air basins that would be directly affected by the 

project. Air quality in nearby air basins could also be affected by changes in travel patterns, miles 

traveled, and regional pollutant transport resulting from the proposed alternatives. These effects are 

expected to be less than those experienced by the basins that physically contain the project. For this 

program-level analysis, potential impacts on air quality are described only on a statewide level and 

for the air basins specified. 

B. GENERAL DISCUSSION OF AIR QUALITY RESOURCES 

Each pollutant is briefly described below. 

• CO is a colorless, odorless gas that is generated in the urban environment primarily by the 

incomplete combustion of fossil fuels in motor vehicles. Relatively high concentrations of CO can 

be found near crowded intersections and along heavily used roadways carrying slow-moving 

traffic. CO chemically combines with the hemoglobin in red blood cells to decrease the oxygencarrying capacity of the blood. Prolonged exposure can cause headaches, drowsiness, or loss of 

equilibrium. 

• SOX constitute a class of compounds, of which SO2 and SO3 are of great importance in air quality. 

SOX is also generated by the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels in motor vehicles. However, 

relatively little SOX is emitted from motor vehicles. The health effects of SOX include respiratory 

illness, damage to the respiratory tract, and bronchio-constriction. 

• HC are composed of a wide variety of organic compounds, including methane (CH4), emitted 

principally from the storage, handling, and combustion of fossil fuels. HC are classified according 

to their level of photochemical reactivity: reactive or nonreactive. Nonreactive hydrocarbons 

consist mostly of methane. Emissions of TOG and ROG are two classes of hydrocarbons 

measured for California’s emission inventory. TOG include all hydrocarbons, both reactive and 

nonreactive. In contrast, ROG include only reactive HC. TOG is measured because nonreactive 

HC have enough reactivity to play an important role in photochemistry. Though TOG can cause 

eye irritation and breathing difficulty, their principal health effects are related to their role in the 

formation of O3. TOG are also considered a GHG.

• NOX constitute a class of compounds that include NO2 and nitric oxide (NO), both of which are 

emitted by motor vehicles. Although NO2 and NO can irritate the eyes and nose and impair the 

respiratory system, NOX, like TOG, is of concern primarily because of its role in the formation of 

O3. NOX is also considered a GHG. 

• O3 is a photochemical oxidant that is a major cause of lung and eye irritation in urban 

environments. It is formed through a series of reactions involving HC and NOX that take place in 

the atmosphere in the presence of sunlight. Relatively high concentrations of O3 are normally 

found only in the summer because low wind speeds or stagnant air coupled with warm 

temperatures and cloudless skies provide the optimum conditions for O3 formation. Because of 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Figure 3.3-1

Air Basins in the Study Region

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.03 Air Quality 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.3-13

the long reaction time involved, peak O3 concentrations often occur far downwind of the 

precursor emissions. Thus, O3 is considered a regional pollutant rather than a localized pollutant. 

• Particulate matter includes both airborne and deposited particles of a wide range of size and 

composition. Of particular concern for air quality are particles smaller than or equal to 

10 microns and 2.5 microns in size, PM10 and PM2.5, respectively. The data collected through 

many nationwide studies indicate that most PM10 is the product of fugitive dust, wind erosion, 

and agricultural and forestry sources, while a small portion is produced by fuel combustion 

processes. However, combustion of fossil fuels account for a significant portion of PM2.5. 

Airborne particulate matter mainly affects the respiratory system. 

• Lead is a stable chemical element that persists and accumulates both in the environment and in 

humans and animals. There are many sources of lead pollution, including mobile sources such as 

motor vehicles and other gasoline-powered engines and nonmobile sources such as petroleum 

refineries. Lead levels in the urban environment from mobile sources have significantly 

decreased because of the federally mandated switch to lead-free gasoline. The principal effects 

of lead on humans are on the blood-forming, nervous, and renal systems. 

• CO2 is a colorless, odorless gas that occurs naturally in the earth’s atmosphere. Significant 

quantities are also emitted into the air by fossil fuel combustion. CO2 is considered a GHG. The 

natural greenhouse effect allows the earth to remain warm and sustain life. GHGs trap the sun’s 

heat in the atmosphere and help determine our climate. As atmospheric concentrations of GHGs 

rise, so may temperatures. Higher temperatures may result in more emissions, increased smog, 

and respiratory disease. 

The existing (2005) baseline pollutant burden for each of the two air basins is described in the 

following section. The existing baseline represents the current air quality conditions in each of the air 

basins in the study area. The future No Project conditions are considered the estimated 2020 future 

baseline pollutant burden for each of the affected air basins. The existing and future baseline 

information was developed using the CARB pollutant burden projections for the years 2005 and 2020, 

available at the CARB web site. 2030 emission projections were projected based on the 2005–2020 

data. CARB projections are based on future growth levels in stationary, areawide, and mobile 

sources. CARB projections account for emission reductions resulting from clean vehicles and clean 

fuel programs. There are two categories of mobile sources: on road and off road. Vehicles licensed 

for highway use are considered on-road mobile sources; airplanes, marine vessels, locomotives, 

construction and garden equipment, and recreational off-road vehicles are considered off-road mobile 

sources. 

C. AIR RESOURCES BY AIR BASIN 

The air quality attainment status based on state and federal standards for CO, PM10, PM2.5 and O3 

for each of the air basins in the study area is shown in Table 3.3-3. All air basins are assigned an 

attainment status for air pollutants based on meeting state and federal pollutant standards. There 

are some differences between state and federal standards, so a pollutant might not have the same 

status under each standard. A basin is considered in attainment for a particular pollutant if it meets 

the standards set for that pollutant; a basin is considered in maintenance for a pollutant if the 

standards were once violated but are now met; and a basin is considered nonattainment for a 

particular pollutant if its air quality exceeds standards for that pollutant. A basin is considered 

unclassified if the area cannot be classified based on available information as meeting or not meeting 

the applicable standard. The standards and status designations are discussed in more detail above in 

Section 3.3.1, Regulatory Requirements and Methods of Evaluation. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.03 Air Quality 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.3-14

Table 3.3-3 

Attainment Status of Affected Air Basins 

 CO PM2.5 PM10 O3

Air 

Basin 

National 

Standard 

State 

Standard 

National 

Standard 

State 

Standard 

National 

Standard 

State 

Standard 

National 

Standard 

State 

Standard 

San 

Francisco 

Bay Area 

Maintenance Attainment Attainment Nonattainment Unclassified – 

24 hour/ 

Attainment –

Annual 

Nonattainment Marginal 

nonattainment 

Nonattainment – 1 

hour / 

Unclassified 

– 8 hour 

San 

Joaquin 

Valley 

Maintenance Attainment 

except for 

Fresno 

Urbanized 

Area, which 

is 

nonattainm

ent 

Nonattainment Nonattainment Maintenance 

(as of 

10/17/06) 

Nonattainment Serious 

nonattainment 

Nonattainment 

San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin

The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin covers California’s second largest metropolitan area. The 

counties in the air basin are Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, and 

Santa Clara, as well as the southern half of Sonoma County and the southwestern portion of Solano 

County. The unifying feature of the basin is the San Francisco Bay, which is oriented north-south 

and covers about 400 square miles (sq mi) (1,036 square kilometers [sq km]) of the area’s total 

5,545 sq mi (14,361 sq km). Approximately 20% of California’s population resides in this air basin. 

The area is surrounded by hills, but low passes and the Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta, which 

extends to the San Francisco Bay, allow some air pollutant transport to the Central Valley. 

Pollution sources in the basin account for about 16% of the total statewide criteria pollutant 

emissions. The basin is federally classified as follows: maintenance for CO, attainment for PM2.5, 

unclassified/attainment for PM10, and marginal nonattainment for O3. 

Emissions of O3 precursors (NOX and TOG) have decreased since 1975 and are projected to continue 

declining through 2010. This is the result of strict motor vehicle controls. Stationary source 

emissions of TOG have declined over the last 20 years because of new controls on oil refinery fugitive 

emissions and new rules for control of TOG from various industrial coatings and solvent operations. 

PM10 emissions are predicted to increase through 2010. This increase is caused by growth in 

emissions from areawide sources, primarily fugitive dust sources. Mobile source emissions from 

diesel motor vehicles have been decreasing since 1990, even though population and VMT have been 

growing. This is the result of stringent emission standards. 

CO emissions have been declining in the basin over the last 25 years, and this trend is expected to 

continue. Motor vehicles and other mobile sources are the largest sources of CO emissions in the air 

basin. Because of stringent control measures, CO emissions from motor vehicles have been 

declining. 

San Joaquin Valley Air Basin

The San Joaquin Valley Air Basin encompasses the southern two-thirds of California’s Central Valley. 

The counties in this basin are Fresno, Kings, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Tulare, and 

the western portion of Kern. The basin spreads across 25,000 sq mi (64,750 sq km). The basin is 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.03 Air Quality 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.3-15

mostly flat and unbroken, with most of the area below 400 ft (122 m) in elevation. The San Joaquin 

River runs along the western side of the basin from south to north. The San Joaquin Valley has cool, 

wet winters and hot, dry summers. Generally, the temperature increases and rainfall decreases from 

north to south. 

Air quality is not dominated by emissions from one large urban area in this basin. Instead, a number 

of moderately sized urban areas are spread along the main axis of the valley. Approximately 9% of 

the state’s population lives in the San Joaquin Valley. Pollution sources in the region account for 

about 14% of the total statewide criteria pollutant emissions. 

The basin is federally classified as follows: maintenance for CO, nonattainment for PM2.5 and PM10, 

and serious nonattainment for O3. 

The population in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin increased by 56% from 1981 to 2000. This is a 

much higher rate than the statewide average of 39%. During the same time period, the daily VMT 

increased by 136%, again much higher than the overall statewide average of 91%. Overall, except 

for PM10, the emission levels in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin have been decreasing since 1990. 

The rate of improvement, however, has not been the same as for other air basins. This is due mainly 

to the large growth rates and increased VMT this area has experienced. 

Emissions of the O3 precursors NOX and TOG are decreasing in the air basin. NOX emissions have 

decreased by approximately 24% since 1985 and are predicted to decrease another 26% by 2010. 

ROG emissions have decreased by approximately 48% since 1985. They are predicted to decrease 

another 11% by 2010. These reductions have resulted from more stringent mobile and stationary 

source emission controls and standards. 

Direct emissions of PM10 have been increasing in the air basin and are expected to continue 

increasing. This increase is due to growth in emissions from areawide sources, primarily fugitive dust 

from vehicle travel on unpaved and paved roads, waste burning, and residential fuel combustion. 

These increases are a direct result of the large growth in population and VMT. Mobile sources 

(emissions directly emitted from motor vehicles) are predicted to decrease through 2010 because of 

new diesel standards. 

CO emissions have been trending downward since 1985 and are expected to continue downward 

through 2010. Motor vehicles are the largest source of CO emissions in the air basin. Emissions 

from motor vehicles have been declining since 1985, despite increased VMT. This is the result of 

stringent emission control measures and standards. 

3.3.3 Environmental Consequences 

A. EXISTING CONDITIONS COMPARED TO NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE 

Pollutant burden levels of CO, NOX, and TOG are predicted to decrease statewide through 2030 

compared to existing levels. This decrease is due to the implementation of stringent standards, 

control measures, and state-of-the-art emission control technologies. Emissions per vehicle are 

dropping significantly in California because of CARB’s clean vehicle and clean fuel programs. 

Consequently, motor vehicle emissions are declining overall, despite an increase in VMT. The low 

emission vehicle (LEV) and LEVII regulations adopted in 1990 and 1998, respectively, require a 

declining average fleet emission rate for new cars, pickup trucks, and medium-duty vehicles 

(including sport utility vehicles). These regulations, which are being implemented between 1994 and 

2010, are expected to result in about a 90% decline in new vehicle emissions. Similar emission 

reductions are occurring in the heavy-duty diesel truck fleet as progressively lower emission 

standards for new trucks are introduced. The next phase of tighter diesel truck standards, scheduled 

to be implemented between 2007 and 2010, is expected to produce an overall reduction of 98% from 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.03 Air Quality 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.3-16

uncontrolled engine emissions. Newer regulations, including California’s low fuel standards, which 

will require a 10% reduction of carbon intensity by 2020, and AB1493, which is predicted to result in 

a 27% reduction in grams of CO2 per vehicle mile by 2030, are not yet reflected in the current 

emission burden estimates developed by CARB and are thus not reflected in this analysis. 

According to CARB pollutant burden projections, emissions of PM10 are expected to increase 

statewide for the No Project Alternative compared to existing conditions. The upward trend in PM10 

emissions is primarily the result of increased emissions from areawide sources, including dust from 

increased VMT on unpaved and paved roads. PM10 emissions from stationary sources are also 

expected to increase slightly in the future because of industrial growth. 

CO2 levels for 2005 were projected from data in the December 2006 report Inventory of California 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 to 2004, by the California Energy Commission. Year 

2005 CO2 emissions were estimated at 1.280 million tons/day. 

The percentage of each pollutant source that may be affected by the HST Alignment Alternatives is 

shown in Figure 3.3-2. Of the four sources of concern (on-road mobile, trains, planes, electric) 

shown in the figure, on-road mobile is the largest single contributor for all the pollutants. For CO, 

on-road mobile sources would contribute 74%; for NOX, on-road mobile sources would contribute 

50%. These percentages are only based on the four sources affected by the project and do not 

reflect total statewide percentages. By detailing the potential overall contribution to statewide 

pollution levels of each of these sources, the relationship between changes in sources and overall 

pollution concentrations becomes clearer. 

The following analysis of the Pacheco and Altamont Alternatives is based on the “low” ridership 

projections found in Chapter 2, Table 2.3-3. As discussed in Chapter 2, only the low ridership 

forecasts are used for air quality analysis for both the Pacheco and Altamont alternatives. 

B. PACHECO ALTERNATIVE 

No Project Base Alternative Compared to Pacheco Alignment Alternative 

The highway component is based on potential daily VMT reductions of 73.365 million miles. The air 

travel component is based on potential reductions of 43,865 daily trips. 

Roadways: The proposed Pacheco Alignment Alternative could potentially result in a daily reduction 

of 73.365 million VMT as compared to the No Project Alternative. Changes in VMT and estimated onroad mobile source emission reductions resulting from the use of the proposed HST have been 

calculated statewide and for each of the air basins (Table 3.3-4). The highest reductions in on-road 

mobile source emissions are predicted for the San Francisco Bay Air Basin. The Pacheco Alignment 

Alternative is predicted to reduce the 2030 predicted CO mobile source emission budget for San 

Francisco Bay Air Basin by 94.3 tons per day (85.6 metric tons per day). 

Air Travel: The air-travel component is based on 52,876 daily trips (1 trip = 1 takeoff and 1 landing), 

or 433 flights statewide, being shifted from the airplane component of No Project future conditions to 

the proposed Pacheco Alignment Alternative. The emission burden reductions projected from the 

reduced number of flights, shown in Table 3.3-5, were calculated by determining the number of 

flights that could be accommodated by the proposed HST and multiplying that number by the 

emission estimates of an average flight, as described above in the discussion of methods of 

evaluating impacts. The emission changes by air basin resulting from the reduced number of flights 

range from an estimated 3.4% reduction in PM2.5 in the San Francisco Bay Air Basin to a 0.1% 

reduction in CO in the San Joaquin Air Basin. Statewide emission reductions range from 0.7% for 

PM10 and PM2.5 to 3.4% for NOX. CO2 plane emissions, generated based on BTUs, are predicted to 

decrease by approximately 44% on a statewide level under the Pacheco Alignment Alternative. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Figure 3.3-2

Pollutants That May Be Affected

Nitrogen Oxides

50%

24%

18%

8%

Mobile On-Road

Trains

Planes

Electric

Carbon Monoxide

74%

3%

20%

3%

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.03 Air Quality 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.3-17

Train Travel: Conventional rail service is not predicted to increase under the proposed Pacheco 

Alignment Alternative; therefore, no change in pollutant burdens is predicted as a result of 

conventional train travel. 

Electrical Power: Additional electrical power would be required to operate the HST system. Because 

of the nature of electrical power generation and the use of a grid system to distribute electrical 

power, it is not yet clear which facilities would be supplying power to the HST system. Emission 

changes from power generation can therefore be predicted only on a statewide level for the full HST 

system. As shown in Table 3.3-6, CO, PM10, PM2.5, NOX, and TOG burden levels would be predicted 

to increase because of the power requirements of the Pacheco Alignment Alternative. A 1.2% 

increase in CO, PM10, PM2.5, TOG, and NOX is predicted in the electric utilities portion of these CARB 

pollutant emission burden projections. A 1.8% increase in CO2 electrical power emission burden 

projections is predicted due to increased electrical requirements of the project. If it is decided that 

the project would be run on 100% clean, zero-carbon emissions electricity, there would be no 

predicted increase in CO2 levels due to the project’s increased electrical requirements. 

Summary of Pollutants: Table 3.3-7 summarizes the combined source categories for existing 

conditions and the No Project Alternative and the Pacheco Alignment Alternative. Compared to the 

No Project Alternative, the proposed Pacheco Alignment Alternative is projected to result in a 

decrease in the amount of pollutants statewide and in all air basins analyzed. Potential air quality 

benefits would range from a medium to a high rating. CO2 levels are also detailed in Table 3.3-7. 

CO2 project impacts were estimated based on energy projections developed for each alignment 

alternative. CO2 calculations for the alignment alternatives reflect only emissions from electrical 

power stations, planes, and on-road VMT. More detailed tables illustrating the analysis of the 

pollutant burdens predicted, can be found in the appendix to this report. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 3.3-4 

On-Road Mobile Source Regional Emissions Analysis—No Project Alternative and Pacheco Alignment Alte

Air 

Basin 

2030 No 

Project 

VMT 

2030 

Pacheco 

Base VMT 

2030 No Project Emission Burden 

(Tons/Day) 

2030 Pacheco Base Emission Burden 

(Tons/Day) I

 CO 

PM 

10 

PM

2.5 NOX TOG CO2 CO 

PM

10 

PM

2.5 NOX TOG CO2 CO 

Miles and Tons per Day* 

San Francisco Bay 112,280,333 71,514,786 259.8 11.6 7.5 51.0 36.0 NA 165.5 7.4 4.8 32.5 22.9 NA -94.3 San Joaquin Valley 126,463,316 116,352,966 142.8 7.1 4.2 33.8 19.3 NA 131.4 6.5 3.9 31.1 17.8 NA -11.4 State Total 1,141,592,762 

1,068,227,70

5 1,310.5 56.9 35.1 263.5 186.2 486,613 1,226.2 53.2 32.5 246.5 174.2 455,341 -84.2 

Kilometers and Metric Tons per Day* 

San Francisco Bay 180,697,680 115,091,892 235.7 10.5 6.8 46.2 32.6 NA 150.1 6.7 4.3 29.5 20.8 NA -85.6 San Joaquin Valley 203,522,979 187,251,948 129.6 6.4 3.8 30.6 17.5 NA 119.2 5.9 3.5 28.2 16.1 NA -10.4 State Total 1,837,215,462 

1,719,145,84

7 1,188.8 51.6 31.8 239.0 168.9 441,457 1,112.4 48.3 29.5 223.7 158.1 413,086 -76.4 

* Area emission increments are based on area specific emission factors derived from area specific VMT and emission burdens. Statewide emission increments are bathan area specific emissions, thus the statewide totals do not represent a simple sum of all air basins but rather an average of emission increments statewide. CO2 em

level. 

Air Basin 

% Change from No Project 

CO PM10 PM2.5 NOX TOG CO2

San Francisco Bay -36.3 -36.3 -36.3 -36.3 -36.3 NA San Joaquin Valley -8.0 -8.0 -8.0 -8.0 -8.0 NA State Total -6.4 -6.4 -7.3 -6.4 -6.4 -6.4 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 3.3-5 

Airplane Emission Burdens—No Project Alternative and Pacheco Alignment Alternative 

Air Basin 

2030 Projected No Project Airplane Emission 

Inventory (Tons/Day) 

Flights 

removed 

due to 

project 

2030 Emission Reductions due to Flights 

removed under Build Alternative (Tons/Day) 

2030 Total Pla

Alt

CO 

PM 

10 

PM

2.5 NOX TOG CO2 CO 

PM 

10 

PM 

2.5 NOX TOG CO2 CO 

PM 

10 

Tons per Day*

San Francisco Bay 74.75 0.67 0.64 41.45 12.72 NA 167 -1.74 -0.02 -0.02 -1.20 -0.41 NA 73.00 0.65 San Joaquin Valley 81.50 0.46 0.45 4.75 10.03 NA 10 -0.10 0.00 0.00 -0.07 -0.02 NA 81.40 0.46 State Total 346.74 7.76 7.67 92.44 51.05 114 433 -4.53 -0.06 -0.06 -3.13 -1.08 -50.45 342.21 7.70 

Metric Tons per Day* 

San Francisco Bay 67.81 0.61 0.58 37.60 11.54 NA 167 -1.58 -0.02 -0.02 -1.09 -0.38 NA 66.23 0.59 San Joaquin Valley 73.93 0.42 0.41 4.31 9.10 NA 10 -0.09 0.00 0.00 -0.06 -0.02 NA 73.84 0.42 State Total 314.56 7.04 6.96 83.87 46.31 103.30 433 -4.11 -0.05 -0.05 -2.84 -0.98 -45.77 310.45 6.99 *CO2 emissions are only calculated on a statewide level.

 Air Basin 

% Change from No Project 

CO PM10 PM2.5 NOX TOG CO2

San Francisco Bay -2.3 -3.2 -3.4 -2.9 -3.3 NA San Joaquin Valley -0.1 -0.3 -0.3 -1.4 -0.2 NA State Total -1.3 -0.7 -0.7 -3.4 -2.1 -44.3 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 3.3-6 

Electrical Power Station Emissions—No Project Alternative and Pacheco Alignment Alternative 

Air Basin 

2030 Projected No Project Energy Emission Inventory 

(Tons/Day) 

2030 Emission changes due to HST power 

demands under the Build Alternative 

(Tons/Day) 

2030 Total Ene

Al

CO PM10 PM2.5 NOX TOG CO2* CO PM10 PM2.5 NOX TOG CO2 CO PM10 

Tons per Day 

Statewide 60.08 9.34 9.00 39.16 44.48 391,412 0.71 0.11 0.11 0.46 0.52 7,234 60.78 9.45 

Metric Tons per Day 

Statewide 54.50 8.47 8.17 35.53 40.36 355,090 0.64 0.10 0.10 0.42 0.47 6,563 55.14 8.57 * Assumes 22.2% of CO2 inventory is a result of electrical production, as per Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 to 2004, 

 Air 

Basin 

% Change from No Project 

CO PM10 PM2.5 NOX TOG CO2

Statewide 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.8 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 3.3-7 

Potential Impacts on Air Quality Statewide—Existing, No Project, and Pacheco Alignment Alternati

Air Basin 

2005 Existing Emission Inventory (Planes, Trains, 

On-Road Mobile, and Energy, CO2 all sources) 

(Tons/Day) 

2030 Projected No Project Emission Inventory 

(Planes, Trains, On-Road Mobile, and Energy, CO2 all 

sources) (Tons/Day) 

2030 Projected 

Trains, On-R

s

CO PM10 PM2.5 NOX TOG CO2 CO PM10 PM2.5 NOX TOG CO2 CO PM10 

Tons per Day 

San Francisco Bay 1536 10 7 318 174 NA 398 22 17 144 94 NA 303 18 San Joaquin Valley 948 7 6 224 102 NA 231 8 5 58 31 NA 220 7 State Total 7,979 69 52 1759 932 1,280,217 1,715 69 47 478 253 1,763,118 1,627 65 

Metric Tons per Day 

San Francisco Bay 1,393 9 7 288 157 NA 361 20 16 131 86 NA 275 16 San Joaquin Valley 860 7 5 203 93 NA 210 7 5 53 28 NA 199 7 State Total 7,239 63 48 1,596 846 1,161,416 1,556 62 42 433 229 1,599,505 1,476 59 

Air Basin 

% Change from No Project 

CO PM10 PM2.5 NOX TOG CO2

San Francisco Bay -23.9 -18.9 -15.2 -13.3 -13.7 NA San Joaquin Valley -5.0 -7.0 -6.6 -4.8 -5.0 NA State Total -5.2 -5.4 -5.6 -4.2 -5.2 -1.4 

Air Basin 

Benefit Rating 

CO PM10 PM2.5 NOX TOG CO2

San Francisco Bay High High High High High NA San Joaquin Valley Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium NA State Total Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium NA 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.03 Air Quality 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.3-22

Local Impacts: A total of 18 intercity freeway segments were analyzed. The general trend in 

screenline data shows that the LOS on these freeway segments would largely remain the same under 

the Pacheco Alignment Alternative compared to the No Project Alternative. Most of the freeway 

segments would experience less than a 5% change in V/C ratio and no change in LOS. This is with 

the exception of I-5 (between I-580 and SR 140), which would experience a better level of service 

under the Pacheco Alignment Alternative, with an approximately 20% reduction in V/C ratio. V/C 

ratio is the comparison of the roadway volume to roadway capacity, and a reduction in the V/C ratio 

signifies a better level of service and, therefore, less congestion and lower potential for air quality 

impacts. 

As the alignment alternatives are refined, segments where V/C ratios increase (degrade) should be 

screened to determine whether more detailed local analyses need to be conducted. Roadways and 

intersections around proposed station location options should also be screened and undergo detailed 

modeling if necessary to ensure that the project would not cause or exacerbate a violation of 

applicable air quality standards. 

GHGs: The air quality analysis identified a reduction of about 1.4% of CO2 emissions statewide 

attributed to the Pacheco Alignment Alternative. This would be a beneficial impact due to the 

reduction in automobile vehicle miles traveled (mobile sources) and reduction in the number of 

airplane trips. 

C. ALTAMONT ALTERNATIVE 

No Project Base Alternative Compared to Altamont Alignment Alternative 

The highway component is based on potential daily VMT reductions of 87.952 million miles. The air 

travel component is based on potential reductions of 41,573 daily trips. 

Roadways: The proposed Altamont Alignment Alternative could potentially result in a daily reduction 

of 87.952 million VMT as compared to the No Project Alternative. Changes in VMT and estimated onroad mobile source emission reductions resulting from the use of the proposed HST have been 

calculated statewide and for each of the air basins (Table 3.3-8). The highest reductions in on-road 

mobile source emissions are predicted for the San Francisco Bay Air Basin. The Altamont Alignment 

Alternative is predicted to reduce the 2030 predicted CO mobile source emission budget for San 

Francisco Bay Air Basin by 101.5 tons per day (91.7 metric tons per day). 

Air Travel: The air-travel component is based on 55,168 daily trips (1 trip = 1 takeoff and 1 landing), 

or 411 flights statewide, being shifted from the airplane component of No Project future conditions to 

the proposed Altamont Alignment Alternative. The emission burden reductions projected from the 

reduced number of flights, shown in Table 3.3-9, were calculated by determining the number of 

flights that could be accommodated by the proposed HST and multiplying that number by the 

emission estimates of an average flight, as described above in the discussion of methods of 

evaluating impacts. The emission changes by air basin resulting from the reduced number of flights 

range from an estimated 3.2% reduction in PM2.5 in the San Francisco Bay Air Basin to a 0.1% 

reduction in CO in the San Joaquin Air Basin. Statewide emission reductions range from 0.7% for 

PM10 and PM2.5 to 3.2% for NOX. CO2 plane emissions, generated based on BTUs, are predicted to 

decrease by approximately 42% on a statewide level under the Altamont Alignment Alternative. 

Train Travel: Conventional rail service is not predicted to increase under the proposed Pacheco 

Alignment Alternative; therefore, no change in pollutant burdens is predicted as a result of 

conventional train travel. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 3.3-8 

On-Road Mobile Source Regional Emissions Analysis—No Project Alternative and Altamont Alignment Alt

Air 

Basin 

2030 No 

Project 

VMT 

2030 

Altamont 

Base VMT 

2030 No Project Emission Burden 

(Tons/Day) 

2030 Altamont Base Emission Burden 

(Tons/Day) I

CO 

PM 

10 

PM 

2.5 NOX TOG CO2 CO 

PM

10 

PM 

2.5 NOX TOG CO2 CO 

Miles and Tons per Day* 

San Francisco Bay 112,280,333 65,382,106 259.8 11.6 7.5 51.0 36.0 NA 158.7 7.1 4.6 31.1 22.0 NA -101.5 San Joaquin Valley 126,463,316 112,879,903 142.8 7.1 4.2 33.8 19.3 NA 131.7 6.5 3.9 31.1 17.8 NA -11.2 State Total 1,141,592,762 1,053,640,241 1,310.5 56.9 35.1 263.5 186.2 486,613 1,224.3 53.1 32.8 246.2 174.0 463,187 -86.2 

Kilometers and Metric Tons per Day* 

San Francisco Bay 180,697,681 105,222,299 235.7 10.5 6.8 46.2 32.6 NA 144.0 6.4 4.1 28.3 19.9 NA -91.7 San Joaquin Valley 203,522,980 181,662,594 129.6 6.4 3.8 30.6 17.5 NA 119.5 5.9 3.5 28.2 16.2 NA -10.1 State Total 1,837,215,462 1,695,669,599 1,188.8 51.6 31.8 239.0 168.9 441,457 1,110.7 48.2 29.7 223.3 157.8 420,204 -78.2 * Area emission increments are based on area specific emission factors derived from area specific VMT and emission burdens. Statewide emission increments are bathan area specific emissions, thus the statewide totals do not represent a simple sum of all air basins but rather an average of emission increments statewide. CO2 em

level. 

Air Basin 

% Change from No Project 

CO PM10 PM2.5 NOX TOG CO2

San Francisco Bay -38.9 -38.9 -38.9 -38.9 -38.9 NA San Joaquin Valley -7.8 -7.8 -7.8 -7.8 -7.8 NA State Total -6.6 -6.6 -6.6 -6.6 -6.6 -4.8 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 3.3-9 

Airplane Emission Burdens—No Project Alternative and Altamont Alignment Alternative 

Air Basin 

2030 Projected No Project Airplane Emission 

Inventory (Tons/Day) Flights removed 

due to 

project 

2030 Emission Reductions due to Flights 

removed under Build Alternative (Tons/Day) 

2030 Total Pla

Alt

CO 

PM 

10 

PM 

2.5 NOX TOG CO2 CO 

PM 

10 

PM 

2.5 NOX TOG CO2 CO 

PM 

10 

Tons per Day*

San Francisco Bay 74.75 0.67 0.64 41.45 12.72 NA -158 -1.65 -0.02 -0.02 -1.14 -0.39 NA 73.10 0.65 San Joaquin Valley 81.50 0.46 0.45 4.75 10.03 NA -9 -0.09 0.00 0.00 -0.07 -0.02 NA 81.40 0.46 State Total 346.74 7.76 7.67 92.44 51.05 114 -411 -4.29 -0.05 -0.05 -2.96 -1.02 -47.83 342.44 7.70 

Metric Tons per Day* 

San Francisco Bay 67.81 0.61 0.58 37.60 11.54 NA -158 -1.50 -0.02 -0.02 -1.03 -0.36 NA 66.31 0.59 San Joaquin Valley 73.93 0.42 0.41 4.31 9.10 NA -9 -0.09 0.00 0.00 -0.06 -0.02 NA 73.85 0.42 State Total 314.56 7.04 6.96 83.87 46.31 103.30 -411 -3.90 -0.05 -0.05 -2.69 -0.93 -43.39 310.67 6.99 *CO2 emissions are only calculated on a statewide level.

 Air Basin 

% Change from No Project 

CO PM10 PM2.5 NOX TOG CO2

San Francisco Bay -2.2 -3.1 -3.2 -2.8 -3.1 NA San Joaquin Valley -0.1 -0.3 -0.3 -1.4 -0.2 NA State Total -1.2 -0.7 -0.7 -3.2 -2.0 -42.0 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 3.3-10 

Electrical Power Station Emissions—No Project Alternative and Altamont Alignment Alternative 

Air Basin 

2030 Projected No Project Energy Emission Inventory 

(Tons/Day) 

2030 Emission changes due to HST power 

demands under the Build Alternative 

(Tons/Day) 

2030 Total Ene

Al

CO PM10 PM2.5 NOX TOG CO2* CO PM10 PM2.5 NOX TOG CO2 CO PM10 P

Tons per Day 

Statewide 60.08 9.34 9.00 39.16 44.48 391,412 0.71 0.11 0.11 0.46 0.52 7,234 60.78 9.45 9

Metric Tons per Day 

Statewide 54.50 8.47 8.17 35.53 40.36 355,090 0.64 0.10 0.10 0.42 0.47 6,563 55.14 8.57 8* Assumes 22.2% of CO2 inventory is a result of electrical production, as per Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 to 2004, 

 Air 

Basin 

% Change from No Project 

CO PM 10 PM2.5 NOX TOG CO2

Statewide 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.8 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 3.3-11 

Potential Impacts on Air Quality Statewide—Existing, No Project, and Altamont Alignment Alternat

Air Basin 

2005 Existing Emission Inventory (Planes, Trains, 

On-Road Mobile, and Energy, CO2 all sources) 

(Tons/Day) 

2030 Projected No Project Emission Inventory 

(Planes, Trains, On-Road Mobile, and Energy, CO2 all 

sources) (Tons/Day) 

2030 Projected 

Trains, On-R

s

CO PM10 PM2.5 NOX TOG CO2 CO 

PM 

10 

PM 

2.5 NOX TOG CO2 CO 

PM 

10 

Tons per Day 

San Francisco Bay 1,536 10 7 318 174 NA 398 22 17 144 94 NA 296 17 San Joaquin Valley 948 7 6 224 102 NA 231 8 5 58 31 NA 220 8 State Total 7,979 69 52 1,759 932 1,280,217 1,715 69 47 478 253 1,763,118 1,625 65 

Metric Tons per Day 

San Francisco Bay 1,393 9 7 288 157 NA 361 20 16 131 86 NA 269 16 San Joaquin Valley 860 7 5 203 93 NA 210 7 5 53 28 NA 200 7 State Total 7,239 63 48 1,596 846 1,161,416 1,556 62 42 433 229 1,599,505 1,474 59 

Air Basin 

% Change from No Project 

CO PM10 PM2.5 NOX TOG CO2

San Francisco Bay -25.6 -20.2 -16.3 -14.2 -14.7 NA San Joaquin Valley -4.9 -6.9 -6.4 -4.7 -4.9 NA State Total -5.3 -5.5 -5.1 -4.2 -5.3 -0.9 

Air Basin 

Benefit Rating 

CO PM10 PM2.5 NOX TOG CO2

San Francisco Bay High High High High High NA San Joaquin Valley Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium NA State Total Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium NA 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.03 Air Quality 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.3-27

Electrical Power: Additional electrical power would be required to operate the HST system. Because 

of the nature of electrical power generation and the use of a grid system to distribute electrical 

power, it is not yet clear which facilities would be supplying power to the HST system. Emission 

changes from power generation can therefore be predicted only on a statewide level for the full HST 

system. As shown in Table 3.3-10, CO, PM10, PM2.5, NOX, and TOG burden levels would be 

predicted to increase because of the power requirements of the Altamont Alignment Alternative. A 

1.2% increase in CO, PM10, PM2.5, TOG, and NOX is predicted in the electric utilities portion of these 

CARB pollutant emission burden projections. A 1.8% increase in CO2 electrical power emission 

burden projections is predicted due to increased electrical requirements of the project. If it is 

decided that the project would be run on 100% clean, zero-carbon emissions electricity, there would 

be no predicted increase in CO2 levels due to the project’s increased electrical requirements. 

Summary of Pollutants: Table 3.3-11 summarizes the combined source categories for existing 

conditions and the No Project Alternative and the Altamont Alignment Alternative. Compared to the 

No Project Alternative, the proposed Altamont Alignment Alternative is projected to result in a 

decrease in the amount of pollutants statewide and in all air basins analyzed. Potential air quality 

benefits would range from a medium to a high rating. CO2 levels are also detailed in Table 3.3-11. 

CO2 project impacts were estimated based on energy projections developed for each alignment 

alternative. CO2 calculations for the alignment alternatives reflect only emissions from electrical 

power stations, planes, and on-road VMT. More detailed tables illustrating the analysis of the 

pollutant burdens predicted can be found in the appendix to this section. 

Local Impacts: A total of 18 intercity freeway segments were analyzed. The general trend in 

screenline data shows that the LOS on these freeway segments would largely remain the same under 

the Altamont Alignment Alternative compared to the No Project Alternative. Most of the freeway 

segments would experience less than a 5% change in V/C ratio and no change in LOS. This is with 

the exception of I-5 (between I-580 and SR 140), which would experience a better level of service 

under the Altamont Alignment Alternative, with an approximately 20% reduction in V/C ratio. V/C 

ratio is the comparison of the roadway volume to roadway capacity, and a reduction in the V/C ratio 

signifies a better level of service and, therefore, less congestion and lower potential for air quality 

impacts. 

As the alignment alternatives are refined, segments where V/C ratios increase (degrade) should be 

screened to determine whether more detailed local analyses need to be conducted. Roadways and 

intersections around proposed station location options should also be screened and undergo detailed 

modeling if necessary to ensure that the project would not cause or exacerbate a violation of 

applicable air quality standards. 

GHGs: The air quality analysis identified a reduction of about 0.9% of CO2 emissions statewide 

attributed to the Altamont Alignment Alternative. This would be a beneficial impact due to the 

reduction in automobile vehicle miles traveled (mobile sources) and reduction in the number of 

airplane trips. 

3.3.4 Design Practices 

The HST system would use electrical propulsion to serve the forecast ridership, which is primarily diverted 

from highway or air travel. The HST Alignment Alternatives are estimated to have a beneficial effect on 

the emissions levels throughout the air basins involved. In addition, the Authority will pursue the 

identification and utilization of energy produced from clean/efficient sources to the extent possible, as per 

the California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program, which was enacted in SB 1078, ch. 516, Statutes 

of 2002, which added California Public Utility codes sections 387, 399.11 et seq., and 399.25. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.03 Air Quality 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.3-28

As described in Section 3.1, “Traffic, Transit, Circulation, and Parking,” using existing/planned multimodal 

hubs for station location options would also minimize air emission increases in and around station areas. 

3.3.5 Mitigation Strategies and CEQA Significance Conclusions 

Based on the analysis above, the proposed HST Alignment Alternatives would have a less than significant 

effect on air quality because they are predicted to result in reduced emissions of CO, PM10, PM2.5, NOX, 

TOG, and CO2 compared to the No Project Alternative. 2

 Continued improvements in air pollution controls 

on vehicles, as new vehicles replace older vehicles, will result in an overall reduction of the average air 

pollutant emissions per vehicle mile of operation in the future. Use of the proposed HST system, 

however, would reduce vehicle miles otherwise traveled and result in an air quality benefit when viewed 

on a systemwide and a regional basis. Temporary, short-term (defined by EPA as less than 5 years) 

increases in emissions associated with construction activities will be reduced with the application of 

mitigation strategies. The potential for localized air pollutant increases associated with traffic near 

proposed HST stations will be addressed by mitigation strategies and design practices (discussed in 

Section 3.1.6) applied to reduce these impacts. When more detailed, area-specific analyses are 

conducted on the project, it is recommended that a hot spot screening analysis and if necessary a 

detailed microscale analysis be conducted to determine if the project causes or exacerbates a violation of 

the applicable standards. Construction sites lasting more than 5 years should undergo a detailed 

construction analysis in the area specific analyses. 

The proposed HST system would result in beneficial impacts related to GHGs and global climate change. 

Any additional carbon entering the atmosphere, whether by emissions from the project itself or by 

removal of carbon sequestering plants (included agricultural crops), would be more than offset by the 

beneficial reduction of carbon resulting from the project due to a reduction in automobile vehicle miles 

traveled (mobile sources) and reduction in the number of airplane trips. 

The program-level analysis in this document reviews the potential statewide air quality impacts of a 

proposed HST system, and the analysis would support determination of conformity for the proposed HST 

system. At the project level, potential mitigation strategies should be explored to address potential 

localized impacts. The proposed HST system could be designed to use state-of-the-art, energy-efficient 

equipment to minimize potential air pollution impacts associated with power used by the proposed HST 

system. Potential localized impacts could be addressed at the project level by promoting the following 

measures: 

• Increase use of public transit. 

• Increase use of alternative-fueled vehicles. 

• Increase parking for carpools, bicycles, and other alternative transportation methods. 

• Potential construction impacts, which should be analyzed once more detailed project plans are 

available, can be mitigated by following local and state guidelines. 

Potential mitigation strategies for air quality impacts associated with the project would focus on the 

alleviation of traffic congestion around passenger station areas, as described in Section 3.1, “Traffic, 

Transit, Circulation, and Parking,” and on the reduction of air emissions during the construction process. 

The potential strategies listed below are related to the reduction of air emissions during construction. 

• Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. 

 

2

 Both the Altamont and Pacheco Alignment Alternatives would have virtually the same air quality benefits. See Tables 3.3-7 and

3.3-11. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.03 Air Quality 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.3-29

• Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require that all trucks maintain at 

least 2 ft of freeboard. 

• Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (nontoxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, 

parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites. 

• Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public 

streets. 

• Hydroseed or apply (nontoxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously graded areas 

inactive for 10 days or more). 

• Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply (nontoxic) soil stabilizers to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, 

etc.). 

• Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mi per hour. 

• Install sandbags or other erosion-control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. 

• Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. 

• Use alternative fuels for construction equipment when feasible. 

• Minimize equipment idling time. 

• Maintain properly tuned equipment. 

The proposed HST system is expected to result in an air quality improvement when viewed on a 

systemwide basis. Temporary, short-term emissions increases associated with construction activities and 

potential localized air pollution increases associated with traffic near proposed HST stations would be 

substantially reduced by the application of mitigation strategies and design practices. See Section 3.1.6 

for further discussion of mitigation strategies for increased traffic near stations. At the second-tier, 

project-level review, applications of these mitigation strategies are expected to reduce localized air quality 

impacts to a less-than-significant level in most locations. Additional environmental assessment will allow 

more precise evaluation in the second-tier, project-level environmental analyses. 

3.3.6 Subsequent Analysis 

At the project level, local traffic counts would be conducted at access roads serving major station 

locations. These counts would provide more accurate information for determining potential local air 

quality hotspot locations. Hotspots are areas where the potential for elevated pollutant levels exist. 

Once potential hotspot locations (if any) are determined, a detailed analysis following the guidelines at 

the time of analysis would be conducted. 

Potential construction impacts and potential mitigation measures would also be addressed in subsequent 

analyses. Once alignments are established, a full construction analysis should be conducted. This 

analysis should quantify emissions from construction vehicles, excavation, worker trips, and other related 

construction activities. Specific mitigation measures, if required, would be identified and a construction 

monitoring program, if required, would be established. 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.4-1

3.4 Noise and Vibration 

This section identifies potential noise and vibration impacts on sensitive receptors or receivers, such as 

people in residential areas, schools, and hospitals, for the No Project and HST Alignment Alternatives1

. 

This analysis generally describes the sensitive noise receptors in the region and the methodology for 

determining the potential noise and vibration impacts on those receptors for each HST Alignment 

Alternative. The differences in potential impacts among the HST Alignment Alternatives are compared 

to each other. This comparison considers the potential noise impacts from airplanes, automobiles on 

intercity highways, and the proposed HST system. The section also discusses the potential noise 

benefits of adding grade separations2

 for existing railroads in some areas and eliminating noisegenerating at-grade crossings. Because this is a program-level environmental document, the analysis 

of potential noise and vibration impacts broadly compares the relative differences in potential impacts 

among the alternatives. 

3.4.1 Regulatory Requirements and Methods of Evaluation 

A. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 

Noise and vibration are environmental issues evaluated under CEQA and NEPA for a proposed HST 

project. 

Federal Noise Emission Compliance Regulation

The FRA has a regulation governing compliance with the Noise Emission Compliance Regulation 

adopted by the EPA for noise emissions from interstate railroads. The FRA’s Railroad Noise 

Emission Compliance Regulation (49 CFR Part 210) prescribes minimum compliance regulations for 

enforcement of the railroad noise emission standards adopted by the EPA (40 CFR Part 201). 

California Noise Control Act

At the state level, the California Noise Control Act was enacted in 1973 (Health and Safety Code 

§ 46010 et seq.) and provides for the Office of Noise Control in the Department of Health Services 

to provide assistance to local communities developing local noise control programs and work with 

the Office of Planning and Research to provide guidance for the preparation of the required noise 

elements in city and county general plans, pursuant to Government Code § 65302(f). In preparing 

the noise element, a city or county must identify local noise sources and analyze and quantify, to 

the extent practicable, current and projected noise levels for various sources, including highways 

and freeways, passenger and freight railroad operations, ground rapid transit systems, commercial, 

general, and military aviation and airport operations, and other ground stationary noise sources, 

these would include HST alignments. Noise-level contours must be mapped for these sources, 

using both community noise equivalent level (CNEL) and day-night average level (Ldn), and are to 

be used as a guide in land use decisions to minimize the exposure of community residents to 

excessive noise. 

 

1 See Section 3.0, Introduction, for an explanation of how this section fits together with the HST Network Alternatives presented in Chapter 7, as well as for an 

overview of the information presented in the other chapters. 

2 For this analysis, a grade separation is the literal separation, using overpasses or underpasses, of the rail and roadway components of an at-grade crossing. 

This eliminates the need for trains to blow horns or sound warning devices at the grade separated (previous grade crossing) locations. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.4 Noise and Vibration 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.4-2

B. METHOD OF EVALUATION OF IMPACTS 

Assessment of the HST Alignment Alternatives is based on relevant criteria adopted by the FRA 

(U.S. Department of Transportation 2005), FHWA (U.S. Department of Transportation 1998), and 

FTA (Federal Transit Administration 2006), each of which has established criteria for assessing 

noise impacts. The FRA has established criteria for assessment of noise and vibration impacts for 

high-speed ground transportation projects, with speed over 125 mph, as presented in the FRA High 

Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Assessment (U.S. Department of Transportation 

2005). The methodology and impact criteria for noise and vibration from this FRA guidance manual 

have been used in the assessment of the HST Alignment Alternatives in areas with speed over 125 

mph. In areas with train speeds under 125 mph, the FTA criteria for assessment of noise and 

vibration impacts, as found in Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (Federal Transit 

Administration 2006), has been used in the assessment of the HST Alignment Alternatives. As 

described below, each agency’s criteria were used to define a screening distance for assessing the 

potential for noise impact from relevant sources. The FRA and FTA have also established vibration 

impact criteria related to rail transportation. 

Two basic evaluation techniques were used for analysis of the HST: a screening analysis and a 

more specific analysis of typologies derived from representative HST locations. The representative 

typologies were used to verify screening-level assumptions and to provide a basis for comparison of 

HST Alignment Alternatives, including consideration of the potential effectiveness of mitigation and 

the potential impacts or benefits associated with grade separation of existing rail lines. 

Screening Procedure

Transportation noise impacts are assessed according to the number of people and noise-sensitive 

land uses potentially impacted by new noise sources from a project. However, at the program level 

(especially before many project-level details of the proposed HST system have been defined) it is 

not possible to develop a specific measure of the noise impacts. Consequently, a screening method 

was used to develop a general estimate of the relative potential for noise and vibration impact 

among HST Alignment Alternatives. Screening distances were applied from the center of 

alignments to estimate all potentially impacted land uses in noise-sensitive environmental settings. 

The screening distances used are defined in the statewide program EIR/EIS (California High-Speed 

Rail Authority and Federal Railroad Administration 2005, Appendix 3.4-A). Based on census data, 

the number of people and noise-sensitive land uses were estimated within the defined screening 

distance. The rating methods used to determine these numbers are also described in the statewide 

program EIR/EIS (California High-Speed Rail Authority and Federal Railroad Administration 2005, 

Appendix 3.4-A). The method is conservative in that it overestimates the potential for impact. The 

method identifies all potentially impacted developed lands by type of use within the study area, but 

subsequent project-level analysis using better-defined system parameters and land use information 

is likely to indicate lower levels of potential impact. Because potential noise impacts decrease 

dramatically if a structure or land form blocks the path to the receptor, this is a conservative 

approach. 

Noise screening analyses were performed for the HST Alignment Alternatives based on criteria 

established by the FRA and FTA for HST and conventional rail. The analyses were accomplished 

using available GIS data for land use and alignment geometry for each alignment. The number of 

people potentially affected and the area of noise-sensitive land uses within the screening distance 

were determined using GIS and census data. 

The analyses were subsequently combined to develop an impact rating for each alignment 

alternative (see Environmental Consequences). The impact rating for each alignment alternative is 

described as low, medium, or high, as an indication of the potential for noise impact. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.4 Noise and Vibration 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.4-3

Rating the severity of impacts requires an assessment of how many people are exposed to impactlevel noise and vibration. Consequently, a metric describing the relative magnitude of impact was 

developed. 

Impact Metric = (Residential Population in the Impact Area/Mile) + 0.3 × (Mixed Use Population in 

the Impact Area /Mile) + (100 × Number of Hospitals in the Impact Area)/Mile + (250 × Number 

of Schools in the Impact Area)/ Mile 

For this screening study, the impact metrics and impact ratings are defined in Table 3.4-1. The 

rating scheme is designed to indicate the potential for noise and vibration impacts along the 

alignment alternatives. 

Table 3.4-1 

Ratings Used for Noise and Vibration Analysis 

Rating Impact Metric 

Noise Vibration 

Low Less than 80 Less than 40 

Medium 80–200 40–100 

High Greater than 200 Greater than 100 

Application of Screening Method to Conventional Rail and High-Speed Train Modes

Railroad noise and vibration criteria developed by FTA are consistent with criteria adopted by the 

FRA for HSTs. Criteria for HST noise impact assessment are based on activity interference and 

annoyance ratings developed by EPA. These criteria, described and presented in graphical form in 

the statewide program EIR/EIS (California High-Speed Rail Authority and Federal Railroad 

Administration 2005, Appendix 3.4-A), provide the basis for the rail noise analysis procedures used 

in the screening and the representative typologies (U.S. Department of Transportation 2005). 

The screening procedure used by the FRA takes into account the noise impact criteria, the type of 

corridor, and the ambient noise conditions in typical communities. Distances within which potential 

impacts may occur are defined based on operations of a typical HST system. These distances were 

developed from detailed noise models based on empirical measurements of noise emissions of 

existing steel-wheel/steel-rail HSTs, expected maximum operation levels and speeds, and 

residential land use. The width of the potential impact along the length of the HST alignment is the 

area in which there is potential for noise impact. The FRA screening procedure was developed for 

HST speeds from 125 to 210 mph (201 to 338 kph). For speeds less than 125 mph (201 kph) and 

for areas near stations, the FTA screening method was used in concert with the FRA method. The 

average speed along the HST Alignment Alternatives was used to determine the screen distance. 

The FRA and FTA screening distances for noise are included in the statewide program EIR/EIS 

(California High-Speed Rail Authority and Federal Railroad Administration 2005, Appendix 3.4-A). 

The screening distances are different for the different types of developed areas along a potential 

alignment, according to their estimated existing ambient noise. Urban and noisy suburban areas 

are grouped together. These areas are assumed to have ambient noise levels greater than 60 dBA 

Ldn. Similarly, quiet suburban, rural, and natural open-space areas are grouped as areas where 

ambient noise levels are less than 55 dBA Ldn. For developed land with Ldn between 55 and 

60 dBA, the classification depends on other factors, such as proximity of major transportation 

facilities and density of population. The screening procedure was applied to first allow for the 

comparison of impacts between alternatives and to identify areas of potential impacts for further 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.4 Noise and Vibration 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.4-4

consideration in project-level analysis. The screening procedure estimates the affected receptors to 

ensure that all potential impacts are included at the program level. 

Although the screening procedure is based on the type of equipment (technology and power type), 

operational characteristics of the new services (speeds and frequencies), the type of support 

structure (aerial or at-grade), and the general ambient noise level, it does not address the horn and 

bell noise associated with existing passenger and freight trains because these are regarded as part 

of the existing environment. To develop a relative comparison of the HST Alignment Alternatives, 

the results of the screening analysis were adjusted to account for noise reductions from the 

elimination of at-grade crossings on existing rail lines, where the HST Alignment Alternatives would 

share the rail corridor. The degree of adjustment was based on the representative typologies for 

similar circumstances and is defined in the following section. 

As a final step for those areas rated medium or high for potential impacts, the screening analysis 

assessed the potential use of noise barriers and other mitigation options to reduce noise impacts. 

The mitigation analysis is discussed in Section 3.4.5. 

The vibration screening procedure was used to compare potential impacts among HST alignments 

and to provide an estimate of the length of alignments where consideration of vibration attenuation 

features may be appropriate. 

Representative Typologies for High-Speed Trains

To better understand the potential impacts of the HST, several noise impact assessment studies 

were previously prepared for representative situations of noise- and vibration-sensitive land uses in 

the statewide program EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA, November 2005). The more detailed General 

Assessment Method of FTA’s and FRA’s guidance manuals were used to estimate the potential for 

noise impacts. These typological studies verified the general results from the screening procedure. 

Representative situations were chosen to provide a range of potential impact types and levels. This 

approach provided a means of considering at the program level the potential impacts on 

communities along any potential proposed HST alignment. 

Developed land use categories consist of individual medium- and low-density residential zones, 

schools, hospitals, parks, and other unique institutional receptors such as museums and libraries. 

Residential land uses were chosen for the typologies for new and shared corridors that varied in 

local zoning densities, ambient noise conditions, set back distances from the alignment, and HST 

operational speeds. Institutional uses, as mentioned above, and parks were individually identified 

for each focused study. These representative typologies evaluated the topics listed below. 

• Verification of screening distances (noise and vibration). 

• Effectiveness of noise barriers. 

• Benefits from elimination of grade crossings. 

• Costs and benefits of a high-speed downtown bypass loop. 

Verification of Screening Distances (Noise and Vibration)

The analyses of the representative typologies confirmed that the screening method used an 

appropriate upper boundary as an indicator of potential for noise impact. Impacts were found to 

occur in 90% of the cases identified in the screening procedure; in 75% of those studied, 

consideration of mitigation may be appropriate. Those that would have insignificantly low noise 

impact were either at outer edges of the screening distance or were shielded sufficiently by other 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.4 Noise and Vibration 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.4-5

buildings. Shielding by terrain features or buildings is not taken into account in the screening 

process but would be included in the subsequent project-level analyses of HST segments. 

Representative typology studies were also completed that assess the range of the potential 

vibration impact levels that are likely to be encountered in project-level analyses. The results 

generally show that the closer buildings would be to a proposed alignment, the greater the 

likelihood of impact. Where speeds are expected to be low, the vibration potential impacts are 

confined to within 100 ft (30 m) of the track. At top speeds, the potential impacts extend to 200 ft 

(61 m). The special typologies generally validate the vibration screening distances that are 

included in the statewide program EIR/EIS (California High-Speed Rail Authority and Federal 

Railroad Administration 2005, Appendix 3.4-A). 

Effectiveness of Noise Barriers

Noise barriers are used extensively in Europe and Japan to mitigate noise impacts from HST 

systems. The representative typology studies generally indicated that mitigation by sound barrier 

walls can be an effective means of reducing the potential impacts by one category, for example, 

from severe impact (mitigation appropriate) to impact. Noise barrier mitigation is shown to be 

especially effective for receivers close to the tracks. Although noise barrier walls would not be the 

only potential mitigation strategy considered, they were used to represent mitigation potential in 

the statewide program EIR/EIS (California High-Speed Rail Authority and Federal Railroad 

Administration 2005) and in this Program EIR/EIS.

Benefits from Elimination of Grade Crossings

The representative typology studies were also used to estimate the potential benefit of noise 

reduction resulting from grade separations. A focused noise study in the Bay Area to Central Valley 

region (at Charleston Road in Palo Alto) showed the potential benefit of eliminating horn blowing at 

a typical Caltrain grade crossing on the San Francisco Peninsula. Assessment of noise impact from 

horns at-grade crossings was performed with FRA’s horn noise model and annoyance based 

criteria. The horn noise model indicated an 81% reduction in the number of people impacted 

within 0.25 mi (0.40 km) of that intersection by elimination of horn noise from commuter trains. 

Although the results vary depending on the local population density and proximity of residences 

and other sensitive land uses at each grade crossing, they illustrate the magnitude of the potential 

change to be expected if the sounding of horns and bells at existing rail crossings could be 

eliminated. 

Removing all potential remaining horn noise would not eliminate noise impacts, however, because 

the sound of the trains would remain. The proposed HST would add its own noise to that of other 

trains using the railroad corridor. Carrying the focused study further, it was found that 

approximately 75% of the at-grade crossings to be eliminated with the proposed HST system are 

located adjacent to residential areas with a high potential noise impact rating. Although there 

would be a clear benefit from the elimination of the horns and warning signals, there would be 

additional train noise and vibration primarily from the high train speed and frequency of service. 

Based on these results, the potential noise impact ratings from screening were adjusted to account 

for segments where at-grade crossings would be eliminated for existing passenger and freight 

trains as part of the implementation of HST service along that alignment. A reduction in one 

impact rating level (high to medium or medium to low) was made only for alignments where HST 

speeds would be less than 150 mph (241 kph). Where speeds were above that level, no 

adjustment was made because the noise created by the proposed new service at higher speeds 

would likely overshadow the reduction in horn and bell noise resulting from the grade separation. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.4 Noise and Vibration 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.4-6

This adjustment was made on the alignments listed below. 

• Caltrain Corridor from San Francisco to San Jose. 

• Niles subdivision line from south of Oakland to north of Warm Springs. 

• UPRR line on the Altamont crossing. 

• UPRR and BSNF corridors in the Central Valley. 

C. CEQA SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA 

At the programmatic level, the project would cause a significant noise or vibration impact under 

CEQA if it would result in: 

• Potential exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards 

established by the FRA for high-speed ground transportation and by the FTA for rail projects. 

• Potential exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or 

groundborne noise levels. 

• A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels 

existing without the project. 

• A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above 

levels existing without the project. 

D. METHOD OF EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON WILDLIFE 

The potential for direct effects of train noise on wildlife in natural areas is not well documented. 

There are no established criteria relating high-speed train noise and animal behavior. However, 

some characteristics of high-speed train noise are similar to low overflights of aircraft, and 

researchers generally agree that high noise levels from aircraft overflights can have a disturbing 

effect on both domestic livestock and wildlife. Some animals get used to noise exposure, while 

some do not. Documented effects range from simply taking notice and changing body position to 

taking flight in panic. Whether these responses represent a threat to survival of animals remains 

unclear, although panic flight may result in injuries to animals in rough terrain or in predation of 

unprotected eggs of birds. A limited amount of quantitative noise data relating actual levels to 

effects provides enough information to develop a screening procedure to identify areas where noise 

from HST operations could affect domestic and wild animals. The basis for the screening is the 

interim criteria for HST noise effects on animals shown in Table 3.4-2. 

Figure 3.4-1 presents the screening distances at which a train passby with a sound exposure level 

(SEL) of 100 dBA would occur for different operating speeds. Wildlife in natural areas would be 

minimally affected by train passbys at speeds of up to 180 mph at distances of 60 ft or more. 

Table 3.4-2 

Interim Criteria for High Speed Train Noise Effects on Animals 

Animal Category Class Noise Metric Noise Level 

Domestic Mammals (livestock) Sound exposure level 100 

Birds (poultry) Sound exposure level 100 

Wild Mammals Sound exposure level 100 

Birds Sound exposure level 100 

Source: High Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Assessment 2005. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Figure 3.4-1

Wildlife Impacts at Different Setback 

Distances and Train Speeds

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

180 170 160 155 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60

Speed - mph

Distance - feet

No Noise Impact to Wild and Domestic Animals

Potential Noise Impact to Wild and Domestic Animals

No Noise Impact on Wild and Domestic Animals 

Potential Noise Impact on Wild and Domestic Animals 

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.4 Noise and Vibration 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.4-7

The HST project’s potential noise and vibration impacts on wildlife will be evaluated further at the 

project level when speed, noise, and vibration may be more precisely calculated and field surveys 

may be performed to identify potentially affected wildlife. 

E. METHOD OF EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON PRISTINE OPEN SPACES 

Noise thresholds have been selected as a means by which HST noise impacts on pristine areas with 

very quiet ambient sound levels can be measured. None of these thresholds are associated with a 

specific FRA, FTA, or other criteria or standards for rail noise; however, they are all considered 

useful in describing the potential for impact on pristine areas where the existing ambient noise 

levels are less than 50 dBA. They are based on past experience with the effects of military and 

civilian aircraft overflights on national parks. 

Human cognitive effects of HST operations are interference and annoyance. Interference is the 

precursor to annoyance, which means something that prevents persons from doing what they want 

to do; interference is an interruption or distraction. Annoyance means having an emotional 

reaction to noise interference. Low levels of HST noise can result in interference but not 

necessarily result in annoyance. The number and frequency of HST operations must exceed a 

certain level or threshold before it is perceived as annoying. Interference is a short-term 

occurrence. Annoyance, because of the emotional component is more long lasting. Annoyance is 

the more appropriate criteria in evaluating the receiver experience in pristine open spaces using the 

metric Time Audible (TA) – the percentage of time that aircraft sound levels are audible. This 

metric is used to assess the potential aviation noise annoyance to quiet outdoor areas with 

frequent human recreation and could be adapted for use at the project level for HST noise. 

The other noise metric that could be used to assess potential impacts to pristine areas would be 

change in exposure (ΔL)—the algebraic difference (in A-weighted decibels) between HST noise 

levels and baseline ambient sound levels during the daily period when the HSTs operate. 

Generally, a change in 5 dB is considered noticeable to humans, and an increase of 10 dB is 

considered twice as loud. However, because the measurement period is 12 hours or longer, the 

noise level of a single-event HST passby would be much higher than the ambient noise level but 

would last for less than 15 seconds. As an indication of potential impacts to humans, this metric is 

not as good as annoyance. 

Studies of the effects of military aircraft overflights on recreational uses of national parks have 

suggested a dose response relationship between percent annoyed and percent time audible (Miller 

2001). The following guidelines, taken from this study, are used to assess the different air tour 

alternatives for parks. The average percent annoyed represent those visitors who felt that the 

aircraft flyovers interfered with their appreciation of natural quiet. Table 3.4-3 shows the dose 

response relationship between percent time audible and average percent of visitors annoyed. 

Table 3.4-3 

Dose Response Relationship between Time Audible and Visitor Annoyance 

Percent Time Audible Average Percent of Visitors Annoyed 

10 3–4 

20 6–8 

30 10–12 

40 14–16 

50 19–21 

Source: Miller 2001 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.4 Noise and Vibration 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.4-8

HST operation noise would be limited to the areas that adjoin track alignments. The extent of the 

potential impacts would be determined by the train speed, number of power units and coaches, 

topographical features, and the existing ambient noise levels. To quantify these impacts, projectlevel studies would include detailed graphic plots of noise contours of HST operations in pristine 

open spaces to determine the area of potential effect. 

3.4.2 Affected Environment 

A. STUDY AREA DEFINED 

The study area for the noise and vibration assessment is defined by the screening distances that 

are used by the FRA (U.S. Department of Transportation 2005) and FTA (U.S. Department of 

Transportation 2006) to evaluate rail lines. Study areas are within 1,000 ft (305 m) of the 

centerline of the alignment options for each alignment. 

B. GENERAL DISCUSSION OF NOISE AND VIBRATION 

This section describes the characteristics and associated terms and measurements used for 

transportation-related noise and vibration. When noise from a highway, plane, or train reaches a 

receptor, whether it is a person outdoors or indoors, it combines with other sounds in the 

environment (the ambient noise level) and may or may not stand out in comparison. The distant 

sources may include traffic, aircraft, industrial activities, or sounds in nature. These distant sources 

create a background noise in which usually no particular source is identifiable and to which several 

sources may contribute but is fairly constant from moment to moment and varies slowly from hour 

to hour. Superimposed on this slowly varying background noise is a succession of identifiable noisy 

events of relatively brief duration. Examples include the passing of a train, the over flight of an 

airplane, the sound of a horn or siren, or the screeching of brakes. These single events may be 

loud enough to dominate the noise environment at a location for a short time, and, when added to 

everything else, can be an annoyance. The descriptors used in the measurement of noise 

environments are summarized below. 

The fundamental measure of noise is the dB, a unit of sound level based on the ratio between two 

sound pressures—the sound pressure of the source of interest (e.g., the HST) and the reference 

pressure (the quietest sound that a human can hear). Because the range of actual sound 

pressures is very large (a painful sound level can be over 1 million times the sound pressure of the 

faintest sound), the expression of sound is compressed to a smaller range with the use of 

logarithms. The resulting value is expressed in terms of dB. For example, instead of a sound 

pressure ratio of 1 million, the same ratio is 120 dB. 

The human ear does not respond equally to high- and low- pitched sounds. In the 1930s, 

acoustical scientists determined how humans hear various sounds and developed response 

characteristics to represent the sensitivity of a typical ear. One of the characteristics, called the Acurve, represents the sensitivity of the ear at sound levels commonly found in the environment. 

The A-curve has been standardized. The abbreviation dBA is intended to denote that a sound level 

is expressed as if a measurement has been made with filters in accordance with that standard. 

• Maximum Sound Level (Lmax), measured in dBA, is the highest noise level achieved during a 

noise event. 

• Equivalent Sound Level (Leq), measured in dBA, describes a receptor’s cumulative noise 

exposure from all noise events that occur in a specified period of time. The hourly Leq is a 

measure of the accumulated sound exposure over a full hour. The Leq is computed from the 

measured sound energy averaged over an hour (nothing one would read from moment to 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.4 Noise and Vibration 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.4-9

moment on a meter) representing the magnitude of noise energy received in that hour. FHWA 

uses the peak traffic hour Leq as the metric for establishing highway noise impact. 

• Day-Night Sound Level (Ldn) describes a receptor’s cumulative noise exposure from all noise 

events that occur in a 24-hour period, with events between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. increased by 

10 dB to account for greater nighttime sensitivity to noise. The Ldn is used to describe the 

general noise environment in a location, the so-called “noise climate.” The unit is a computed 

number, not one to be read from moment to moment on a meter. Its magnitude is related to 

the general noisiness of an area. EPA developed the Ldn descriptor, and now most federal 

agencies, including the FRA, use it to evaluate potential noise impacts. Typical Ldns in the 

environment are shown in Figure 3.4-2. 

• CNEL, a variant of Ldn, is used in noise assessments in California. Rather than dividing the day 

into two periods, daytime and nighttime, CNEL adds a third to account for increased sensitivity 

to noise in the evening when people are likely to be engaged in outdoor activities around the 

home. An evening addition of 5 dB is applied to noise events between the 7 and 10 p.m. to 

reflect the additional annoyance noise causes at that time. In general, the difference between 

Ldn and CNEL is slight, and the two measures will be considered interchangeable for purposes 

of this noise analysis. 

• Sound Exposure Level (SEL) is the sound energy from a single event train passby. SEL is a 

cumulative measure of noise so (1) louder events have greater SELs than do quieter ones, and 

(2) events that last longer in time have greater SELs than do shorter ones. 

The way people react to noise in their environment has been studied extensively by researchers 

throughout the world. Based on these studies, noise impact criteria have been adopted by the FRA 

(U.S. Department of Transportation 2005) and other federal agencies to assess the contribution of 

the noise from a source like the HST to the existing environment. The FRA bases noise impact 

criteria on the estimated increase in Ldn (for buildings with nighttime occupancy) or increase in Leq

(for institutional) buildings caused by the project for direct and indirect impacts. Criteria are 

discussed in Section 3.4.1. 

Transportation Noise

Noise from highways, airports, and rail lines tends to dominate the noise environment in its 

immediate vicinity. Each mode has distinctive noise characteristics in both shape and source levels. 

Highway and rail noise affects an area that is linear in shape, extending to both sides of the 

alignment. Airport noise, in contrast, affects a closed area around the facility, with the shape of 

the closed loop determined by runway orientation. 

Conventional and High-Speed Train Noise and Vibration 

Although HSTs have some similar noise and vibration characteristics to conventional trains, they 

also have several unique features resulting from their reduced size and weight, the electrical 

power, and the higher speed of travel. The proposed HST would be a steel-wheel, steel-rail 

electrically powered train operating in an exclusive right-of-way. Because there would be no 

roadway at-grade crossings, the annoying sounds of the train horn and warning bells would be 

eliminated. The use of electrical power cars would eliminate the engine rumble associated with 

diesel-powered locomotives. The above factors allow HST to generate lower noise levels than 

conventional trains at comparable speeds below 100 mph (161 kph). At higher speeds above 

150 mph (241 kph), however, HST noise levels would increase over conventional trains due to 

aerodynamic effects. A mitigating factor is that due to high speeds, HST noise would occur for a 

relatively short duration compared with conventional trains (a few seconds at the highest speeds 

versus 10–20 seconds for conventional passenger trains and over 1 minute for freight trains). 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.4 Noise and Vibration 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.4-10

For the proposed HST system, higher operating speeds of 150–220 mph (241–354 kph) would 

occur in the less constrained areas, in terms of alignment (i.e., flat and straight). In contrast, 

much lower operating speeds (less than 125 mph [201 kph]) would be prevalent in the more 

developed areas. Figure 3.4-3 illustrates the maximum operating speeds for express service along 

each of the proposed HST Alignment Alternatives. Local and semi-express services would not 

necessarily reach these maximum speeds because they would stop and start for more stations. 

Noise from a HST is expressed in terms of a source-path-receiver framework (Figure 3.4-4). The 

source of noise is the train moving on its tracks. The path describes the intervening course 

between the source and the receptor wherein the noise levels are reduced by distance, 

topographical and human-made obstacles, atmospheric effects, and other factors. Finally, at each 

receptor, the noise from all sources combines to make up the noise environment at that location. 

The total noise generated by a train is the combination of sounds from several individual noisegenerating mechanisms, each with its own characteristics, including location, intensity, frequency 

content, directivity, and speed dependence. The distribution of noise sources on a typical HST is 

shown in Figure 3.4-5. These noise sources can be grouped into three categories according to the 

speed of the train. 

For low speeds, below about 40 mph (64 kph), noise emissions are dominated by the propulsion 

units, cooling fans, and under-car and top-of-car auxiliary equipment, such as compressors and air 

conditioning units. The HST would be electrically powered and considerable quieter at low speeds 

than conventional trains, which are usually diesel powered. 

In the speed range from 60 mph to about 150 mph (98–241 kph), mechanical noise resulting from 

wheel-rail interactions and structural vibrations dominate the noise emission from trains. In the 

existing rail corridors in California, conventional trains seldom exceed 79 mph (127 kph), so this 

speed range, which represents a medium range for HST, is the top end of noise characteristics for 

trains with which most people are familiar. Speed has a strong influence on noise in the medium 

speed range. 

Above approximately 170 mph (274 kph), aerodynamic noise sources tend to dominate the 

radiated noise from the HST. Conventional trains are not capable of attaining such speeds. HST 

noise in the transition speeds between each of the three foregoing ranges is a combination of the 

sources in each range. 

Noise from HST also depends on the type and configuration of its track structure. Typical noise 

levels are expressed for HST at grade on ballast and tie track, the most commonly found track 

system. For trains on elevated structure, HST noise is increased, partially due to the loss of sound 

absorption by the ground and partially due to extra sound radiation from the bridge structure. 

Moreover, the sound from trains on elevated structures spreads about twice as far as it does from 

at-grade operations of the same train because of clearer paths for sound transmission. 

Horns are an example of a train noise source that is a dominant noise source at any speed. 

Audible warnings for at-grade crossings, including train horns and warning bells, are a common 

feature of conventional trains and a vital safety component of railroad operations. These noise 

sources often prove to be a source of annoyance to people living near railroad tracks. In the case 

of HST, however, horn and warning bell noise are absent except in the case of emergencies 

because at-grade crossings are eliminated. Reduction of horn and bell noise from the elimination 

of existing at-grade crossings would provide a noise benefit associated with the implementation of 

HST for alignments along existing rail corridors, but only at locations where grade separations are 

built that serve both the HST system and existing rail lines. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Figure 3.4-2

Typical Day-Night Sound Level 

Environments
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Potential Averag
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Figure 3.4-4

HST Source Path Receiver Framework

Source Path Receiver
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Figure 3.4-5

Noise Sources on HST
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.4 Noise and Vibration 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.4-11

Vibration of the ground caused by the pass-by of the HST is similar to that caused by conventional 

steel wheel/steel rail trains. However, vibration levels associated with the HST are relatively lower 

than conventional passenger and freight trains due to advanced track technology, smooth track 

and wheel surfaces, and high maintenance standards required for high-speed operation. 

Ground-borne vibration from trains refers to the fluctuating motion experienced by people on the 

ground and in buildings near railroad tracks. In general, people are not commonly exposed to 

vibration levels from outside sources that they can feel. Little concern results when a door is 

slammed and a wall shakes or something heavy is dropped and the floor shakes momentarily. 

Concern results, however, when an outside source like a train causes homes to shake. The effects 

of ground-borne vibration in a building located close to a rail line could at worst include perceptible 

movement of the floors, rattling of windows, shaking of items on shelves or hanging on walls, and 

rumbling sounds. None of these effects are great enough to cause damage but could result in 

annoyance if repeated many times daily. 

As with noise, ground-borne vibration can be understood as following a source-path-receptor 

framework (Figure 3.4-4). The source of vibration is the train wheels rolling on the rails. They 

create vibration energy that is transmitted through the track support system into the track bed or 

track structure. The path of vibration involves the ground between the source and a nearby 

building. The receptor of vibration is the building.

C. EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT 

Existing noise environments are generally dominated by transportation-related sources, including 

vehicle traffic on freeways, highways, and other major roads, existing passenger and freight rail 

operations, and aviation sources, including civilian and military. Existing noise along highway and 

proposed HST corridors has been estimated using data in the noise element from the general plan 

for cities and counties in the region, along with general methods provided by FHWA, FRA, and FTA 

for estimating transportation noise. Ambient noise levels are characterized for below. Ambient 

vibration conditions are very site-specific in nature and are not characterized as part of the 

program environmental process. 

The study region is central California from the San Francisco Bay Area (San Francisco and Oakland) 

south to the Santa Clara Valley and east across the Diablo Range to the Central Valley. The 

ambient noise in the northern portion of the Bay Area to Central Valley region is dominated by 

motor vehicle traffic in densely populated areas and along freeways. All the regional freeways 

considered in the No Project Alternative are major contributors to the ambient noise environment. 

In this region, the HST Alignment Alternatives would primarily follow or parallel existing rail tracks. 

Along the proposed alignment alternative on the San Francisco Peninsula, the Caltrain passenger 

service is a major contributor to the ambient noise levels, especially at grade crossings, where horn 

noise dominates the noise environment within 0.25 mi (0.40 km) of the intersections. Along the 

proposed East Bay Crossings alignment, existing Amtrak passenger service and freight rail 

contribute to the ambient noise levels, with horns at grade crossings being a major factor. In 

southern San Jose and as far as Gilroy to the south, Caltrain, Amtrak, and freight rail are major 

contributors to the ambient noise levels. 

In the urban areas and suburban areas of the East Bay, San Francisco Peninsula, and San Jose, the 

ambient noise is estimated to range from Ldn 57 to 66 dBA. In many of the residential areas close 

to the international airports at San Francisco (SFO), Oakland (OAK), and San Jose (SJC), the 

ambient levels exceed Ldn 65 dBA. In the more rural areas of the region to the southeast, the 

ambient noise ranges from 52 to 57 dBA. Henry Coe State Park is characterized by a low ambient 

noise environment, approximately Leq 40 dBA, because it is in a remote location and removed from 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.4 Noise and Vibration 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.4-12

transportation noise sources, except in the southern area, which is approximately 5 miles from SR 

152. 

In areas away from major roadways, noise from local noise sources is estimated using a 

relationship determined by the EPA. EPA determined that ambient noise can be approximately 

related to population density in locations away from transportation corridors, such as airports, 

major roads, and railroad tracks, according to the following relation: 

Ldn = 22+ 10 log (p) (in dBA) 

where p = population density in people per square mile. 

3.4.3 Environmental Consequences 

A. NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE 

The No Project Alternative includes programmed and funded transportation improvements that will 

be implemented and operational by 2030, in addition to the existing conditions. These 

improvements are not major systemwide capacity improvements (e.g., major new highway 

construction or widening or additional runways) and will not result in a general improvement of 

intercity travel conditions across the study region. 

For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that there will be no additional noise and vibration 

impacts associated with the development of the No Project Alternative, as compared to existing 

conditions. The potential significant impacts associated with programmed projects would be 

addressed with mitigation measures in a manner consistent with existing conditions in accordance 

with the project-level environmental documents and approvals for the projects as prepared by the 

project sponsors. Although the implementation of the No Project Alternative may result in some 

increases, any estimate of such increases would be speculative. 

B. HIGH-SPEED TRAIN ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES 

It is assumed that any improvements associated with the HST Alignment Alternatives and stations 

location options would be in addition to No Project conditions. 

The existing Caltrain alignment along the San Francisco Peninsula and the East Bay railroad 

alignments pass through densely populated communities where there is high potential for noise 

impacts. The potential noise impacts of the proposed HST service through these areas would 

result primarily from the greater frequency of trains, since the HST service would be operating at 

reduced speeds and would create noise levels similar to the existing services. The HST system 

would be expected to result in the elimination of up to 48 grade crossings on the peninsula and up 

to 38 grade crossings on the East Bay. Grade separation of existing rail services would result in 

considerable benefits from the elimination of the warning bells at existing at-grade crossings and 

the horn blowing of the existing commuter/intercity services along these alignments. 

All the options for mountain crossings between the Bay Area and the Central Valley pass through 

sparsely populated areas but would introduce new noise sources along corridors through wilderness 

areas where the alignment is at grade or elevated. Along the Pacheco alignment from Diridon to 

Gilroy, there are 42.4 miles where noise impacts are rated medium to high and vibration impacts 

are rated medium. Four schools are located along this alignment, with 131 ac of parkland and 

varying residential populations. Through the Altamont Pass, there are 1.7–9.7 mi of sparsely 

populated areas where noise and vibration impacts are rated medium to high.
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.4 Noise and Vibration 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.4-13

The relative level of potential noise and vibration impact for each HST alternative segment is shown 

in Table 3.4-4 and Figure 3.4-6. The table includes the length of alignment alternatives, residential 

population, mixed use population, acreage of parkland, number of schools, and number of 

hospitals. At a program level of analysis, station locations will not affect the impact rating of the 

alternative segments, so no data was included in Table 3.4-4. A detailed data table is included in 

Appendix 3.4-A. 

In general the noise and vibration impact ratings are based on the population densities along each 

of the segments and the proximity of parkland, hospitals, and schools. Segments where trains 

would operate at higher speeds would have a greater level of impact. The comparison of the 

alignment alternatives is based on the data presented in Table 3.4-4 and Figure 3.4-6. Appendix 

3.4-A provides a comparison of the alternative alignments by segment. 

Potential noise and vibration impacts on wildlife and pristine open space from the HST system 

cannot be analyzed and ranked at the programmatic level of this report. At the programmatic 

level, the location and density of wildlife is undetermined, as are the types of wildlife along the HST 

Alignment Alternatives. Areas of pristine open space need to be defined and mapped based on 

more precise project-specific information. The significance of noise and vibration impacts of the 

HST Alignment Alternatives on wildlife and on pristine open space is therefore speculative at this 

time. Future project-level analyses should include a detailed study of the location, type, and 

density of wildlife in the project area. The boundaries of pristine open space should be defined and 

mapped during the project level analyses, so that the amount of pristine open space affected by 

noise and vibration from the HST Alignment Alternatives can be calculated. 

San Francisco to San Jose

Although the HST service in the San Francisco to San Jose (Caltrain) corridor would be going 

through densely populated communities, the alignment alternatives in this corridor were rated as 

having a medium level of potential noise impacts because the HST would be traveling at reduced 

speeds and the communities would benefit from grade separation improvements for existing 

services and electrification of the railroad. 

The noise impacts along this corridor are rated low for those alignment alternatives that are either 

in a tunnel or passing through sparsely populated areas. The remaining alignment alternatives are 

rated medium because of the higher population density in proximity to the alignment and the 

existing parkland and two schools. Vibration impacts along the Transbay Transit Center to 

4th/Townsend segment are low. The other alignment alternatives have the potential for medium to 

high vibration impacts because of the proximity of residential structures to the alignment. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 3.4-4 

Noise and Vibration Impact Summary Data Table for 

Alignment Alternatives and Station Location Option Comparisons 

Corridor 

Possible 

Alignments Alignment Alternative Total Segment (Miles) Residential Population Mixed Use Population Parkland (Acres) Hospitals Scho

San Francisco to San Jose: Caltrain 

1 of 1 San Francisco to 

Dumbarton 28.84 5,509.3 140.1 0.00 0 2 

1 of 1 Dumbarton to San 

Jose 21.61 9,456.3 62.1 5.27 0 0 

Station Location Options 

Transbay Transit Center Ratings are based on alignment alternative that station is on—San Francisco to Dumbart4th and King (Caltrain) Ratings are based on alignment alternative that station is on—San Francisco to DumbartMillbrae/SFO Ratings are based on alignment alternative that station is on—San Francisco to DumbartRedwood City (Caltrain) Ratings are based on alignment alternative that station is on—San Francisco to DumbartPalo Alto (Caltrain) Ratings are based on alignment alternative that station is on—Dumbarton to San Jose 

Oakland to San Jose: Niles/ I-880 

1 of 2 West Oakland to 

Niles Junction 13.6 2,626.7 0.00 0.00 0 1 12th Street/City 

Center to Niles Junction 

13.56 2,636.5 0.00 0.00 0 1 

1 of 2 Niles Junction to 

San Jose via Trimble 

13.09 1,949.6 87.9 67.44 0 1 

Niles Junction to San Jose via I-880 25.55 2,032.9 95.4 67.44 0 1 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Corridor 

Possible 

Alignments Alignment Alternative Total Segment (Miles) Residential Population Mixed Use Population Parkland (Acres) Hospitals Scho

Station Location Options 

West Oakland/7th Street Ratings are based on alignment alternative that station is on—West Oakland to Niles Jun12th Street/City Center Ratings are based on alignment alternative that station is on—12th Street/City Center to 

Junction 

Coliseum/Airport Ratings are based on alignment alternative that station is on—West Oakland to Niles JunUnion City (BART) Ratings are based on alignment alternative that station is on—Niles Junction to San Jose 

Trimble 

Fremont (Warm Springs) Ratings are based on alignment alternative that station is on—Niles Junction to San Jose 

Trimble 

San Jose to Central Valley: Pacheco Pass 

1 of 1 Pacheco 70.57 8,029.2 48.4 735.96 0 4 

1 of 3 Henry Miller 

(UPRR Connection) 62.59 0.6 0.6 1,437.29 0 1 

Henry Miller (BNSF Connection) 64.89 0.6 0.6 1,437.29 0 1 GEA North 51.05 1,496.5 1,361.7 825.92 0 1 

Station Location Options 

San Jose (Diridon) Ratings are based on alignment alternative that station is on—Pacheco Morgan Hill (Caltrain) Ratings are based on alignment alternative that station is on—Pacheco Gilroy (Caltrain) Ratings are based on alignment alternative that station is on—Pacheco East Bay to Central Valley: Altamont Pass

1 of 4 I-680/ 580/UPRR 29.99 1,110.1 0.6 94.51 0 1 

I-580/ UPRR 26.54 894.4 0.6 11.61 1 2 Patterson Pass/UPRR 25.62 2,407.5 0.00 20.40 0 2 UPRR 25.15 2,208.85 0.00 20.40 0 2 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Corridor 

Possible 

Alignments Alignment Alternative Total Segment (Miles) Residential Population Mixed Use Population Parkland (Acres) Hospitals Scho

1 of 4 Tracy Downtown 

(BNSF Connection) 50.18 2,596.9 0.00 54.68 0 1 

Tracy ACE Station (BNSF Connection) 50.41 1,005.8 0.00 200.15 0 1 Tracy ACE Station (UPRR Connection) 29.55 2,693.9 0.00 167.99 0 1 Tracy Downtown (UPRR Connection) 33.14 4,258.6 0.00 54.68 0 1 

2 of 2 East Bay 

Connections 1.77 1,453.74 4.5 0 0 0 

Station Location Options Pleasanton (I-680/Bernal Rd) Ratings are based on alignment alternative that station is on—Patterson Pass/UPRR Pleasanton (BART) Ratings are based on alignment alternative that station is on— I-680/ 580/UPRR Livermore (Downtown) Ratings are based on alignment alternative that station is on—Patterson Pass/UPRR Livermore (I-580) Ratings are based on alignment alternative that station is on— I-680/ 580/UPRR Livermore (Greenville Road/UPRR) Ratings are based on alignment alternative that station is on—Patterson Pass/UPRR Livermore (Greenville Road/I-580) Ratings are based on alignment alternative that station is on—I-680/ 580/UPRR Tracy (Downtown) Ratings are based on alignment alternative that station is on—Tracy Downtown (UPRR Connection) Tracy (ACE) Ratings are based on alignment alternative that station is on—Tracy ACE Station (UPRR Connection) 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Corridor 

Possible 

Alignments Alignment Alternative Total Segment (Miles) Residential Population Mixed Use Population Parkland (Acres) Hospitals Scho

San Francisco Bay Crossings 

1 of 2 Trans Bay 

Crossing – Transbay Transit Center 

6.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 

Trans Bay Crossing – 4th & 

King 

6.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 

1 of 6 Dumbarton (High 

Bridge) 18.57 6,848.0 8.9 366.08 0 4 Dumbarton (Low Bridge) 18.57 6,848.0 8.9 366.08 0 4 Dumbarton (Tube) 18.57 5,267.5 4.5 151.66 0 2 Fremont Central Park (High Bridge) 

22.29 4,279.9 8.9 572.58 0 3 

Fremont Central Park (Low Bridge) 

22.29 4,279.9 8.9 572.58 0 3 

Fremont Central Park (Tube) 

22.29 3,034.3 8.9 214.42 0 2 

Station Location OptionsUnion City (Shinn) Ratings are based on alignment alternative that station is on—Niles Junction to San Jose Via Trimble Central Valley 1 of 6 BNSF – UPRR 86.78 4,000.2 895.5 123.93 1 4 

BNSF 91.29 4,587.5 1052.2 125.57 0 4 UPRR N/S 87.25 7,401.8 648.7 205.27 2 2 BNSF Castle 91.48 7,598.5 1,837.1 494.33 0 7 UPRR – BNSF Castle 92.32 11,363.3 2,066.2 699.60 1 6 UPRR – BNSF 87.62 7,764.9 1,124.6 329.20 2 3 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Corridor 

Possible 

Alignments Alignment Alternative Total Segment (Miles) Residential Population Mixed Use Population Parkland (Acres) Hospitals Scho

Station Location Options Modesto (Downtown) Ratings are based on alignment alternative that station is on—UPRR N/S Briggsmore (Amtrak) Ratings are based on alignment alternative that station is on—BNSF Merced (Downtown) Ratings are based on alignment alternative that station is on—UPRR-BNSF Castle Castle AFB Ratings are based on alignment alternative that station is on—BNSF Castle *Accounts for Grade Crossing Elimination on alignment segments on or adjacent to existing non-grade separated tracks. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Potential 

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.4 Noise and Vibration 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.4-19

Oakland to San Jose

Although the HST service in the Oakland to San Jose corridor would be going through densely 

populated communities, the alignment alternatives in this corridor were rated as having a medium 

level of potential noise impacts because the HST would be traveling at reduced speeds and the 

communities would benefit from grade separation improvements for existing services and 

electrification of the railroad. 

The alignment alternatives through Oakland to Niles are rated medium for noise and high for 

vibration because of the higher population densities and the proximity of a school to the segments. 

The 12th Street/City Center to Niles Junction alignment alternative would have an additional 4.8 mi of 

vibration impact rated high than the West Oakland to Niles Junction alternatives because of the 

segment between 12th Street/City Center to Jack London Square. Noise impacts are the same for 

these two alternatives. 

The alignment alternative from Niles Junction to San Jose via Trimble has 6 mi of noise impacts rated 

as medium and vibration impacts rated high; the Niles Junction to San Jose via I-880 alignment 

alternative is similar but has an additional 2.9 mi of medium rated vibration impact. 

San Jose to Central Valley

The San Jose to Central Valley corridor is rated as having medium potential for noise impacts. 

Although the HST system could reach speeds as great as 186 mph (299 kph) through this area, the 

densities are less than on the San Francisco Peninsula or the East Bay, and the communities would 

receive considerable benefit from the elimination of up to 24 grade crossings. 

Along the Pacheco alignment alternative from Diridon to Gilroy, there are 42.4 miles where noise 

impacts are rated medium to high and vibration impacts are rated medium. Four schools are located 

along this alignment, and there are 131 ac of parkland and varying residential populations. 

All the alignment alternatives for mountain crossings between the Bay Area and the Central Valley 

are through sparsely populated areas but would introduce new noise sources along corridors through 

wilderness areas where the alignment is at grade or elevated. 

From San Luis Reservoir to Henry Miller Wye, there are three alignment alternatives. The noise and 

vibration impacts in the UPRR Connection and BNSF Connection alignment alternatives are rated low. 

Both these alignment alternatives pass through areas with little to no residential population. The 

GEA North alignment alternative is located closer to populated areas and the noise and vibration 

impacts in this alignment alternative are rated medium along the 7.7 miles between GEA Atwater 

Wye to the BNSF. 

Eastbay to Central Valley

In the Eastbay to Central Valley corridor, which extends from Niles Canyon to the County Line 

through the Altamont Pass, there are four alignment alternatives. The I-680/580/UPRR alignment 

alternative is rated a medium noise and vibration impact from Sunol to El Charo Road, which is made 

up of 9.7 mi of sparsely populated residents with 7 ac of parkland. The I-580/UPRR alignment 

alternative is rated a high impact for noise and vibration along the Pleasanton to El Charo 1.7 mi 

segment. The Patterson Pass/UPRR alignment alternative has 8.0 mi of noise and vibration impacts 

rated medium to high from Pleasanton to the Patterson Pass cut off. The UPRR alignment is the 

same as Patterson Pass/UPRR with similar impacts along the same 8.0 mi length. 

Of the four alignments from Tracy to Escaton Wye, the segment from southeast Manteca to the BNSF 

connection would be ranked the highest in noise and vibration impacts. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.4 Noise and Vibration 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.4-20

In the East Bay alignment alternative, the Niles to Niles Wye segment is rated a high vibration impact 

through Fremont, and the segment through Union City is rated a low vibration impact. Noise impacts 

are the same along these segments. 

San Francisco Bay Crossings

In the San Francisco Bay Crossings corridor, the Trans Bay Crossing alignment alternative would be 

through a tunnel and is rated low for noise and vibration impacts. Of the six alignment alternatives 

from the Dumbarton Wye to Niles Wye, the Dumbarton Tube alignment alternative is rated the 

highest noise and vibration impact over the greatest distance, approximately 12 mi. 

Central Valley

Through the Central Valley, most of the HST Alignment Alternatives are rated as low potential noise 

impact due generally to the sparseness of residential land use and the extent of open space along 

most of the length of the options—even though the proposed HST service would be operating at 

maximum speeds throughout most of the Central Valley. However, there are a number of locations 

in the Central Valley where the various alignment alternatives pass through populated areas and have 

high potential noise impact ratings for short segments. Examples include portions of Modesto and 

Merced that could be exposed to higher noise levels from HST operations. 

Through many of the cities in the Central Valley, the HST is proposed to be on aerial structure, 

primarily to reduce potential conflicts with freight railroad spur tracks or freight railroad yards. The 

vertical elevation of the aerial structure would allow potential noise impacts to extend further than 

they would at grade. 

Through the Central Valley corridor, from North Stockton to the Henry Miller BNSF Wye, the 

alignment alternatives with the highest ranked noise impact are the BNSF Castle and UPRR – BNSF 

Castle alternatives, with 16.8 mi that are rated high noise impact and medium vibration impact. 

C. SHORT-TERM CONSTRUCTION NOISE AND VIBRATION 

Construction Noise Levels

Noise impacts from construction of the project will be generated by heavy equipment used during 

major construction periods as close as 50 ft from existing structures along the alignment. Table 3.4-

5 shows the estimated maximum noise levels for the different stages of at-grade construction at 100 

ft from a receiver. 

Table 3.4-5 

Estimated Peak Hour Construction Noise Levels 

Construction Phase Loudest Equipment 

Noise Level at 100 ft 

Lmax (dBA) 

Clearing and grubbing Bulldozer, backhoe, haul trucks 86 

Earthwork Scraper, bulldozer 88 

Foundation Backhoe, loader 85 

Structures Crane, loader, haul truck 86 

Base preparation Trucks, bulldozer 88 

Paving Paver, pumps, haul trucks 89 

Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (U.S. Department of Transportation 2006). 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.4 Noise and Vibration 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.4-21

Construction Vibration Levels

Common vibration-producing equipment used during at-grade construction activities include 

jackhammers, pavement breakers, hoe rams, augur drills, bulldozers, and backhoes. Pavement 

breaking and soil compaction would probably be the activities that produce the highest level of 

vibration. Table 3.4-6 presents various types of construction equipment measured under a wide 

variety of construction activities, with an average of source levels reported in terms of velocity levels. 

Although the table gives one level for each piece of equipment, it should be noted that there is a 

considerable variation in reported ground vibration levels from construction activities. The data 

provide a reasonable estimate for a wide range of soil conditions. 

Table 3.4-6 

Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment 

Equipment Peak Particle Velocity at 25 Ft 

(inches per second) 

Approximate Velocity Level at 

25 Ft 

Pile driver (impact) 

Upper range 1.518 112 

Typical 0.644 104 

Pile driver (sonic) 

Upper range 0.734 105 

Typical 0.170 93 

Clam shovel drop (slurry wall) 0.202 94 

Hydromill (slurry wall) 

In soil 0.008 66 

In rock 0.017 75 

Large bulldozer 0.089 87 

Caisson drilling 0.089 87 

Loaded trucks 0.076 86 

Jackhammer 0.035 79 

Small bulldozer 0.003 58 

Velocity level = Root mean square velocity in decibels (VdB) relative to 1 micro-inch/second. 

Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (U.S. Department of Transportation 2006). 

3.4.4 Role of Design Practices in Avoiding and Minimizing Effects 

Because of the high-speed alignment requirements of the HST system, significant portions of the 

alignment alternatives are in a tunnel or trench section. For these portions of the system, the potential 

for noise impacts is mostly eliminated. The tunnel cross sections are designed (per established 

engineering criteria) to provide sufficient cross-sectional area to avoid potential aerodynamic effects at 

the tunnel portals caused by trains operating at maximum speed. 

At similar speeds, HSTs generate significantly less noise than commuter and freight trains. This is 

primarily to the result of the use of electric power versus diesel engines, higher quality track interface, 

and smaller, lighter, more aerodynamic trainsets. The use of electric power units would not have the 

engine rumble associated with diesel-powered locomotives. Although wheel/track interface is a 

significant source of train noise, HST track beds and rails are designed and maintained to very high 

geometric tolerances and standards, which would greatly minimize track noise that is prevalent with 

commuter/freight tracks throughout the study region. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.4 Noise and Vibration 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.4-22

Another reason HST noise impacts are less than commuter or freight trains is that high speeds would 

result in short duration noise events compared with conventional trains (a few seconds at the highest 

speeds versus 10 to 20 seconds for conventional passenger trains and well over 1 minute for freight 

trains). 

The HST system would be fully grade separated from all roadways. In the urban areas, where potential 

for noise impacts is typically at the highest levels, the HST system would be predominantly in or adjacent 

to existing rail corridors, and the HST Alignment Alternatives often include the grade separation of the 

existing tracks. Grade separations completed with the HST system in corridors such as these would 

eliminate horn sounding and bells at existing grade crossings and would result in noise benefits that 

would offset much of the HST noise impacts. 

3.4.5 Mitigation Strategies and CEQA Significance Conclusions 

Based on the analysis above, and considering the design practices described in section 3.4.4, each of the 

HST Alignment Alternatives would have significant noise and vibration impacts, as detailed in Table 3.4-4. 

The HST Alignment Alternatives would create significant long-term noise and vibration impacts from 

introduction of a new transportation system. At the same time, the HST Alignment Alternatives would 

create some long-term noise reduction benefits because noise sources would be eliminated with grade 

separation of existing grade crossings. It is possible that at the future project-level of analysis, refined 

data and information would confirm that some sections of the alignment alternatives would result in lessthan-significant noise and vibration impacts (i.e., through the Transbay Tunnel); however, for purposes 

of the programmatic analysis, the long-term noise and vibration impacts are considered significant for all 

sections. In addition, the HST Alignment Alternatives would involve significant short-term noise and 

vibration impacts from construction. 

General mitigation strategies are discussed in this program-level review of potential noise impacts 

associated with proposed alternatives that would reduce the impacts. General vibration mitigation 

strategies are less predictable at a program level of analysis because of the site-specific nature of 

vibration transmission through soil along the alignment. More detailed mitigation strategies for potential 

noise and vibration impacts would be developed in the next stage of environmental analysis. Noise and 

vibration mitigation measures can generally be applied to the source (train and associated structures), 

the path (area between train and receiver), and/or the receiver (property or building). An HST system 

would be designed and developed to meet state-of-the-art technology specifications for noise and 

vibration, based on the desire to provide the highest-quality train service possible. Trains and tracks 

would be maintained in accordance with all applicable standards to provide reliable operations. 

Treatments, such as sound insulation or vibration controls to affected buildings, may be difficult to 

implement for the potentially numerous properties adjacent to the right-of-way. Such treatments require 

protracted implementation procedures and separate design considerations. The most feasible and 

effective mitigation treatments are typically those involving the path. These mitigation measures can 

often be applied to the path within the right-of-way, either under or adjacent to the tracks. Potential 

noise impacts can be reduced substantially by the installation of sound barrier walls constructed to shield 

receivers from train noise. For vibration mitigation, several track treatments may be considered for 

reducing train vibrations. Determining the most appropriate treatment would depend on the site-specific 

ground conditions along the corridor. This program-level analysis has identified areas where future 

analysis should be given to potential HST-induced vibrations. The type of vibration mitigation and 

expected effectiveness will be determined as part of the second-tier project-level environmental analyses. 

A. NOISE BARRIERS 

Noise barriers are often a practical way to reduce noise impacts from the proposed HST system. The 

representative typologies considered the mitigation potential of noise barriers for certain areas. In 

most cases the application of appropriately dimensioned noise barriers next to the tracks could 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.4 Noise and Vibration 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.4-23

reduce potential noise impacts from FRA’s severe noise impact category to moderate, and to the no 

impact category in some locations. The design of noise barriers appropriate for the proposed HST 

right-of-way line would depend on the location and height of noise-sensitive buildings, as well as the 

speeds of the trains. Noise barriers 8–10 ft (2–3 m) tall could be installed where speeds are 

relatively low (i.e., wheel/rail noise dominates). Higher noise barriers of 12–16 ft (4–5 m) might be 

used to reduce noise to taller buildings or where speeds are high in noise-sensitive areas. In many 

locations, noise barriers could be installed on one side of the track only because of the location and 

proximity of noise-sensitive areas. 

Application of mitigation to the proposed HST system would result in a considerable reduction of 

potential noise impacts. The estimates obtained from the results of the representative typologies 

showed noise barriers to be effective in reducing the potential noise impact rating by one category, 

for example, from high to medium or from medium to low. Consequently, HST Alignment 

Alternatives with high rating would be adjusted down to, at most, a medium rating. 

The cost of constructing a noise barrier on one side of a rail line is estimated at approximately 

$1 million per mi ($625,000 per km) for a concrete wall of 12 ft (4 m) in height. Conservatively, a 

unit cost of $1.5 million per mi ($937,500 per km) was applied to portions of the HST Alignment 

Alternatives with high potential noise impact ratings. The procedure was repeated for all segments 

with a medium rating, thereby reducing these HST noise impact ratings to low. This approach was 

intended to show that mitigation is possible and to provide a rough estimate of potential mitigation 

costs, recognizing that specific mitigation would be developed as a part of project-level review. 

The results in Table 3.4-7 show the potential mitigation costs for the HST Alignment Alternatives. 

This analysis included noise mitigation (barrier walls) for 1.7 to 42.4 route miles (2.7 to 68.2 route 

km) of the proposed HST alignments with medium to high noise impacts. 

Table 3.4-7 

Potential Length and Cost of Noise Mitigation by Alignment 

 Noise Mitigation 

Length in Miles 

(Km) 

Noise Barrier Cost 

(in millions of 

dollars) 

San Francisco to San Jose: Caltrain 

San Francisco to Dumbarton 26.9 (43.2) 40.3 

Dumbarton to San Jose 18.7 (30.1) 28.0 

Oakland to San Jose: Niles/I-880

West Oakland to Niles Junction (1 of 2) 13.6 (21.9) 20.4 

12th Street/City Center to Niles Junction (2 of 2) 13.6 (21.9) 20.4 

Niles Junction To San Jose via Trimble (1 of 2) 6.0 (9.6) 9.0 

Niles Junction to San Jose via I-880 (2 of 2) 6.0 (9.6) 9.0 

San Jose to Central Valley: Pacheco Pass 

Pacheco 42.4 (68.2) 63.6 

Henry Miller (UPRR Connection) (1 of 3) 0 0 

Henry Miller (BNSF Connection) (2 of 3) 0 0 

GEA North (3 of 3) 7.7 (12.4) 11.6 

East Bay to Central Valley: Altamont Pass 

I-680/I-590/UPRR 9.7 (15.6) 14.6 

I-580/UPRR 1.7 (2.8) 2.6 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.4 Noise and Vibration 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.4-24

 Noise Mitigation 

Length in Miles 

(Km) 

Noise Barrier Cost 

(in millions of 

dollars) 

Patterson Pass/UPRR 8.0 (12.9) 12.0 

UPRR 14.8 (23.7) 22.1 

Tracy Downtown (BNSF Connection) 3.0 (4.8) 4.4 

Tracy ACE Station (BNSF Connection) 8.2 (13.2) 12.3 

Tracy ACE Station (UPRR Connection) 20.0 (32.2) 30.0 

East Bay Connections 1.8 (2.8) 2.7 

San Francisco Bay Crossings 

Trans Bay Crossing – Transbay Transit Center 0 (0) 0 

Trans Bay Crossing – 4th & King 0 (0) 0 

Dumbarton (High Bridge) 18.6 (29.9) 27.9 

Dumbarton (Low Bridge) 18.6 (29.9) 27.9 

Dumbarton (Tube) 11.0 (17.6) 16.4 

Freemont Central Park (High Bridge) 22.3 (35.6) 33.4 

Freemont Central Park (Low Bridge) 22.3 (35.6) 33.4 

Freemont Central Park (Tube) 22.3 (35.6) 33.4 

Central Valley 

BNSF-UPRR 10.7 (17.2) 16.1 

BNSF 10.9 (17.6) 16.4 

UPRR N/S 13.1 (21.0) 19.6 

BNSF Castle 16.8 (27.0) 25.2 

UPRR – BNSF Castle 25.5 (41.1) 38.3 

UPRR – BNSF 19.4 (31.3) 29.1 

B. VIBRATION MITIGATION 

The following mitigation strategies can be refined and applied at the project-specific level and will 

reduce the vibration impact: 

• Specify the use of train and track technologies that minimize ground vibration, such as state-ofthe-art suspensions, resilient track pads, tie pads, ballast mats, or floating slabs. 

• Phase construction activity, use low impact construction techniques, and avoid use of vibrating 

construction equipment where possible to avoid vibration construction impacts. 

Vibration mitigation is less predictable at a program level of analysis because of the site-specific 

nature of vibration transmission through soil along the alignment. However, an estimate can be 

made of the length of corridor where vibration mitigation may need to be considered by totaling the 

segments with potential vibration impact rating of high. The results are shown in Table 3.4-8 and 

Figure 3.4-7. The range is 1.7–42.4 mi (2.7 to 68.2 km) to be considered for mitigation, depending 

on which option is chosen. Although the mitigation measures will reduce vibration impact levels, at 

the programmatic level it is uncertain whether the reduced vibration levels will be below a significant 

impact. The type of vibration mitigation and expected effectiveness to reduce the vibration impacts of 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Potential Vibr

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.4 Noise and Vibration 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.4-25

the HST Alignment Alternatives to a less-than-significant level will be determined as part of the 

second-tier project-level environmental analyses. 

C. CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION 

Potential mitigation strategies for construction noise impacts associated with the HST system are 

listed below. 

• Construction noise could be reduced by using enclosures or walls to surround noisy equipment, 

installing mufflers on engines, substituting quieter equipment or construction methods, 

minimizing time of operation, and locating equipment farther from sensitive receptors. 

• Construction operations could be suspended between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. and/or on 

weekends and holidays in residential areas. 

• Contractors could be required to comply with all local sound control and noise-level rules, 

regulations, and ordinances. 

• Equip each internal combustion engine with a muffler of a type recommended by the 

manufacturer. 

Table 3.4-8 

Length of Potential Vibration Impact by Alignment 

Length of Medium 

Impact in Miles (km) 

Length of High Impact 

in Miles (km) 

San Francisco to San Jose 

San Francisco to Dumbarton 16.3 (26.2 ) 10.6 (17.0 ) 

Dumbarton to San Jose 2.9 (4.7) 18.7 (30.1) 

Oakland to San Jose

West Oakland to Niles Junction (1 of 2) 8.4 (13.6) 5.2 (8.2) 

12th Street/City Center to Niles Junction (2 of 2) 3.6 (5.8) 10.0 (16.1) 

Niles Junction To San Jose via Trimble (1 of 2) 0 (0) 6.0 (9.6) 

Niles Junction to San Jose via I-880 (2 of 2) 2.9 (4.7) 6.0 (9.6) 

San Jose to Central Valley: Pacheco Pass 

Pacheco 42.4(68.2) 0 (0) 

Henry Miller (UPRR Connection) (1 of 3) 0 (0) 0 (0) 

Henry Miller (BNSF Connection) (2 of 3) 0 (0) 0 (0) 

GEA North (3 of 3) 7.7 (12.4) 0 (0) 

East Bay to Central Valley: Altamont Pass

I-680/I-590/UPRR 9.7 (15.6) 0 (0) 

I-580/UPRR 0 (0) 1.7 (2.8) 

Patterson Pass/UPRR 4.1 (6.5) 4.0 (6.4) 

UPRR 4.1 (6.5) 4.0 (6.4) 

Tracy Downtown (BNSF Connection) 0 (0) 1.1 (1.7) 

Tracy ACE Station (BNSF Connection) 0 (0) 1.1 (1.7) 

Tracy ACE Station (UPRR Connection) 5.3 (8.5) 1.1 (1.7) 

East Bay Connections 0 (0) 0.6 (1.0) 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.4 Noise and Vibration 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.4-26

Length of Medium 

Impact in Miles (km) 

Length of High Impact 

in Miles (km) 

San Francisco Bay Crossings 

Trans Bay Crossing – Transbay Transit Center 0 (0) 0 (0) 

Trans Bay Crossing – 4th & King 0 (0) 0 (0) 

Dumbarton (High Bridge) 6.8 (11.0) 11.8 (18.9) 

Dumbarton (Low Bridge) 6.8 (11.0) 11.8 (18.9) 

Dumbarton (Tube) 6.8 (11.0) 11.8 (18.9) 

Freemont Central Park (High Bridge) 12.9 (20.8) 9.4 (15.1) 

Freemont Central Park (Low Bridge) 12.9 (20.8) 9.4 (15.1) 

Freemont Central Park (Tube) 12.9 (20.8) 9.4 (15.1) 

Central Valley 

BNSF-UPRR 0 (0) 0 (0) 

BNSF 0 (0) 0 (0) 

UPRR N/S 0 (0) 6.1 (9.8) 

BNSF Castle 16.8 (27.0) 0 (0) 

UPRR – BNSF Castle 16.8 (27.0) 6.1 (9.8) 

UPRR – BNSF 0 (0) 6.1 (9.8) 

Other measures that should be considered include the following: 

• Specifying the quietest equipment available would reduce noise by 5–10 dBA. 

• Turning off construction equipment during prolonged periods of nonuse would eliminate noise 

from construction equipment during those periods. 

• Requiring contractors to maintain all equipment and train their equipment operators would 

reduce noise levels and increase efficiency of operation. 

• Locating stationary equipment away from noise-sensitive receptors would decrease noise impact 

from that equipment in proportion to the increased distance. 

The above mitigation strategies are expected to reduce the short-term and long-term noise impacts 

of the HST Alignment Alternatives to a less-than-significant level. Additional environmental 

assessment would allow a more precise evaluation in the second-tier project-level environmental 

analyses. 

3.4.6 Subsequent Analysis 

A. NOISE ANALYSIS 

FRA provides guidance for two levels of analysis in project environmental review, a general 

assessment method to further quantify the potential noise impacts in locations identified by the 

screening procedure and a detailed analysis procedure for evaluating suggested noise mitigation at 

locations where further studies show there is potential for significant impacts. The process is 

designed to focus on problem areas as more detail becomes available during project development. 

Subsequent analysis would proceed along the following lines. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.4 Noise and Vibration 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.4-27

Ambient noise conditions

The existing ambient noise environment is described by assumptions in the screening procedure. 

However ambient noise values would be estimated at the project-level analysis based on limited 

measurements in the general assessment and would be thoroughly measured in the detailed analysis. 

A measurement program involving both long-term and short-term noise monitoring would be 

performed at selected locations to document the existing noise environment. Because it would be 

impractical to measure noise everywhere, the monitoring would be supplemented by estimates of 

noise environments at locations considered to be typical of others. Guidelines for characterizing the 

existing conditions are provided by the FRA manual. 

Project Noise Conditions

A generic HST is used in the screening procedure, but a more specific train type, speed profile, and 

operation plan would be available for more refined projections of noise levels in the next stage of 

environmental analysis. 

Noise Propagation Characteristics

The screening procedure assumes flat terrain with noise emanating from a source unhindered by 

landforms and human-made structures. The next stage of analysis would incorporate topography as 

well as consideration of shielding by buildings, vegetation, and other natural features in a particular 

corridor.

Impact Criteria

The screening procedure accounts for all noise-sensitive land use categories that may be exposed to 

noise levels exceeding the threshold of impact. In the next stage of analysis, assessments using the 

full, three-level FRA impact criteria would be performed (U.S. Department of Transportation 2005). 

This more detailed assessment would more specifically identify locations where potential impacts may 

occur and locations where potentially high impact may occur and would provide for consideration of 

specific mitigation measures where appropriate. 

Mitigation

Noise abatement is discussed generally in the screening procedure, and areas are identified where 

more detailed analysis should be focused in the future to integrate a proposed HST system into the 

existing environment. As more detail becomes available in the general assessment phase, there may 

be many areas that were identified as potentially impacted during screening analysis for which 

further analysis would not be needed, because they would not be impacted. The detailed analysis 

would provide information useful for the engineering design of mitigation measures. These measures 

would be considered in the project-level environmental review, and potential visual and shadow 

impacts of noise barriers would also be considered. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.4 Noise and Vibration 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.4-28

B. VIBRATION ANALYSIS 

The steps involved in the more detailed analysis of ground-borne vibration would be similar to those 

for noise. The major difference would be the need for study of site-specific ground-borne vibration 

characteristics. Considerable variation of soil conditions may occur along the corridor, resulting in 

some locations with significant levels of vibration from the HST and other locations at the same 

distance from the track with almost imperceptible vibration levels. Determining the potential 

vibration characteristics in the detailed analysis would involve a measurement program performed 

according to the method described in the FRA guidance manual (U.S. Department of Transportation 

2005). This method would allow for the prediction of vibration levels and frequency spectrum 

information, which is valuable not only in the assessment of impact but also in the consideration of 

mitigation measures. 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.5-1

3.5 Energy 

3.5.1 Regulatory Requirements and Methods of Evaluation 

A. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 

Federal Regulations

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is an independent agency that regulates the 

interstate transmission of natural gas, oil, and electricity. FERC also regulates natural gas and 

hydropower projects. As part of that responsibility, FERC regulates the transmission and sale of 

natural gas for resale in interstate commerce, the transmission of oil by pipeline in interstate 

commerce, and the transmission and wholesale sales of electricity in interstate commerce. FERC also 

licenses and inspects private, municipal, and state hydroelectric projects; approves the siting of and 

abandonment of interstate natural gas facilities, including pipelines, storage, and liquefied natural 

gas; oversees environmental matters related to natural gas and hydroelectricity projects and major 

electricity policy initiatives; and administers accounting and financial reporting regulations and 

conduct of regulated companies. 

Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards 

Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards are federal regulations that are set to reduce 

energy consumed by on-road motor vehicles. The standards specify minimum fuel consumption 

efficiency standards for new automobiles sold in the United States. The current standard for 

passenger cars is 27.5 mpg (11.69 kilometers per liter [kpl]). The 1998 standard for light trucks was 

20.7 mpg (8.8 kpl). On March 31, 2003, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, part of 

the U.S. DOT, issued new light truck standards for model-year 2005 of 21.0 mpg (8.93 kpl), 21.6 

mpg (9.18 kpl) for model-year 2006, and 22.2 mpg (9.44 kpl) for model-year 2007 (National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration 2006). 

Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users 

On August 10, 2005, the President signed into law SAFETEA-LU. SAFETEA-LU represents the largest 

surface transportation investment in history. The two acts that preceded this—the ISTEA and TEA21—shaped the highway program to meet the country’s changing transportation needs. SAFETEA-LU 

builds on these, supplying the funds and refining the programmatic framework for investments 

needed to maintain and grow the transportation infrastructure. 

SAFETEA-LU addresses challenges such as improving safety, reducing traffic congestion, improving 

efficiency in freight movement, increasing intermodal connectivity, and protecting the environment. 

SAFETEA-LU promotes more efficient and effective transportation programs by focusing on 

transportation issues of national significance, while giving state and local transportation decision 

makers more flexibility for solving transportation problems in their communities (National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration 2004). 

Section 403(b) of the Power Plant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-620) 

This section of the Power Plant and Industrial Fuel Use Act encourages conservation of petroleum 

and natural gas by recipients of federal financial assistance. 

Executive Order 12185, Conservation of Petroleum and Natural Gas (December 17, 1979, 44 F.R. § 

75093) 

This executive order encourages additional conservation of petroleum and natural gas by recipients 

of federal financial assistance.
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.5 Energy 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.5-2

State Regulations

Public Resources Code Section 21100(b)(3) provides that an EIR shall include a statement setting 

forth the mitigation measures proposed to minimize the significant effects on the environment, 

including measures to reduce the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy. 

Appendix F to the CEQA Guidelines addresses energy conservation goals, notes that potentially 

significant energy implications of a project should be considered in an EIR, and contains general 

examples of mitigation measures for a project's potentially significant energy impacts. 

CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2 discusses requirements for an EIR to address potentially significant 

effects, and, although it does not include energy specifically, it mentions use of nonrenewable 

resources. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(a)(1)(C) requires an EIR to discuss energy conservation 

measures, if relevant. 

California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6, Energy Efficiency Standards 

Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations, Energy Efficiency Standards, promotes efficient 

energy use in new buildings constructed in California. The standards regulate energy consumed for 

heating, cooling, ventilation, water heating, and lighting. The standards are enforced through the 

local building permit process. These standards may apply to any buildings (e.g., stations) 

constructed as part of or in association with the No Project and HST Alignment Alternatives1

. 

B. METHOD OF EVALUATION OF IMPACTS 

This evaluation of energy supply and demand compares potential energy use for intercity travel 

related to the HST and No Project Alternatives. This section explains the methodology used to 

evaluate the potential energy impacts and benefits attributable to operation (direct energy) and 

construction (indirect energy) of the alternatives under study. This section also explains the criteria 

used to determine whether a potential impact on energy consumption would be significant. The 

evaluation is based on available data and forecasts. 

Direct Energy

The analysis of transportation energy focuses on the overall energy consumption differences between 

the No Project Alternative and a representative HST Alternative2

. This approach captures the major 

transportation fuel inputs: petroleum oil and natural gas (a large component of electricity 

production). Electricity consumption as a specific item is also analyzed because of the special nature 

of electricity, specifically its nonstorability and its lack of suitability for trading in futures markets. 

The HST system would directly consume electricity, which the energy analysis focuses on, although 

natural gas is also addressed as one variable in the overall ability of the state’s electricity-generating 

infrastructure to deliver adequate power to users. Moreover, total reserves of in-the-ground natural 

gas is relatively certain; while it is the market conditions and production capacity trends that 

principally determine the price and supply of this commodity, just as is the case for the other major 

transportation fuel, petroleum oil. 

The energy analysis was performed as described below to determine the operational impact of the 

alternatives on overall regional transportation-related energy supply3

 and regional electricity supply 

during peak demand. 

 

1

 See Section 3.0, Introduction, for an explanation of how this section fits together with the HST Network Alternatives presented in 

Chapter 7, as well as for an overview of the information presented in the other chapters. 

2

 Based on revised low-end ridership forecast developed by Cambridge Systematics June 11, 2007. Also refer to Chapter 2, 

“Alternatives,” and Section 2.3.3.C, Travel Demand and Ridership Forecasts. 

3 Overall energy refers to the combination of energy derived from petroleum fuels and electrical energy. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.5 Energy 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.5-3

Overall Statewide Transportation-Related Energy Supply 

Overall direct energy consumption by the alternatives involves potential energy use for vehicle 

(automobiles, airplanes, and HSTs) operation and related infrastructure in the region. The potential 

direct impacts on overall transportation-related energy supply were evaluated both quantitatively and 

qualitatively. 

The quantitative analysis focused on the direct relationship between projected vehicle miles traveled 

(VMT) (vehicle kilometers traveled [VKT]) and energy consumption to estimate the potential change 

in total energy consumption between the No Project Alternative and the HST Alternative. The 

quantitative assessment of direct energy impacts considered the VMT (VKT) for automobiles and 

HST, as described below (consistent with the analysis conducted for air quality). 

Variation of Fuel Consumption Rates by Vehicle Type

For this analysis, the design demand was established based on the ridership studies conducted by the 

MTC, as discussed in Chapter 2, “Alternatives.” Automobile VMT (VKT) modeling for the proposed 

HST system was developed as part of this Program EIS/EIR and used to develop VMT (VKT) values 

for existing conditions and the No Project Alternative. 

The VMT (VKT) fuel consumption method used herein is outlined in Technical Guidance, Section 5309 

New Starts Criteria (Federal Transit Authority, Office of Planning 1999). Energy consumption factors 

for the first two modes identified in Table 3.5-1 were developed by Oak Ridge Laboratory and 

published in the 2006 Transportation Energy Book (edition 25) (U.S. Department of Energy, Office of 

Planning, Budget Formulation and Analysis, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 2006). These 

results are based on national averages for road, traffic, and weather conditions and are intended for 

general comparisons. The energy consumption factor for the HST mode is based on energy used by 

similarly designed trains, such as the Trains à Grande Vitesse in France and the Intercity Express in 

Germany (DE Consult 2000). This report assumes a 16-car trainset (engines and cars) with a 1,200-

passenger carrying capacity. 

Table 3.5-1 

Direct Energy Consumption Factors 

Mode Factor (Btus/VMT) 

Passenger vehicles (auto, van, light truck)a 5,572 

Airplanesa 326,894 

High-speed trainsb 924,384 

Btus = British thermal units. 

Sources: 

a

 U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Planning, Budget Formulation and Analysis, Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy 2006; based on nationally averaged conditions and fleet composition. b

 DE Consult 2000, based on a 16-vehicle trainset. 

Overall direct energy, measured in Btus, was converted to equivalent barrels of crude oil to represent 

potential energy impacts and/or savings. (Btus are the standard units used by industry and 

government literature for such comparisons. Metric units for energy [i.e., Joules] are not used in this 

report.) Annual direct-energy consumption values for intercity travel was calculated and compared 

for existing conditions, the No Project Alternative, and the HST Alternative. The potential change in 

direct energy consumption from the future No Project condition (in Btus) was calculated for the HST 

Alternative. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.5 Energy 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.5-4

The qualitative analysis of overall direct energy consumption considers the estimated or assumed 

levels of service for each of the alternatives and the effect that each would have on congestion and 

travel speeds, which would have a substantial impact on fuel efficiency and, therefore, energy use. 

In addition to the overall direct energy analysis, average energy consumption per passenger mile 

(kilometer) was calculated for the HST Alternative. 

Statewide Electricity Supply during Period of Peak Demand 

For the HST Alternative, peak-period electricity demand was determined using an energy 

consumption factor for HSTs obtained from the DE Consult Peer Review Report (DE Consult 2000) 

and the operation plan developed as part of this Program EIR/EIS process. The demand was 

calculated in terms of megawatts (MW) and compared to current estimates of peak demand and 

supply capacity in the grid controlled by the California Independent System Operator (Cal-ISO). Peak 

demand for electricity for the future No Project Alternative is discussed qualitatively because it is not 

possible to measure at the program level. This approach is reasonable because the possible increase 

in transportation-related electricity use associated with these alternatives would likely be small and 

considered insignificant. 

Indirect Energy

The energy that would be used to construct the proposed project is called indirect energy. Projected 

construction-related energy consumption refers to energy used for the construction of HST trackway 

and support facilities and transportation of materials and equipment to and from the work site. To 

the extent that construction energy information was available from other sources or existing HST 

systems, it was used in this analysis. However, some other countries have developed HST systems 

incrementally over extended periods of time (e.g., France) and have only limited relevant information 

available. Construction-related energy consumption factors identified for the proposed HST system 

included data gathered for typical heavy rail systems and a heavy rail commuter system, San 

Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART). These data were used to estimate the projected 

construction-related energy consumption of the proposed HST system. Projected constructionrelated energy consumption is presented in Table 3.5-2. These estimates are appropriate for 

comparison purposes. 

The construction energy payback period measures the number of years that would be required to pay 

back the energy used in construction with operational energy consumption savings. The payback 

period is calculated for this section by dividing the estimate of each alternative’s construction energy 

by the amount of energy that would later be saved by the HST Alternative compared to the No 

Project condition. It is assumed that the amount of energy saved in the study year (2030) would 

remain constant throughout the payback period. 

Table 3.5-2 

Construction-Related Energy Consumption Factors for the Proposed HST System 

Facility 

Rural Compared 

to Urband Factor (billions of Btus) 

At grade Ruralb 12.29/one-way guideway mi 

Urbanc 19.11/one-way guideway mi 

Elevated Ruralb 55.46/one-way guideway mi 

Urbanc 55.63/one-way guideway mi 

Below grade (cut) Ruralb 117.07/one-way guideway mi 

Urbanc 163.14/one-way guideway mi 

Below grade (tunnel) Ruralb 117.07/one-way guideway mi 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.5 Energy 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.5-5

Facility 

Rural Compared 

to Urband Factor (billions of Btus) 

Urbanc 328.33/one-way guideway mi 

Station N/Ae 78a/station 

a

 Value for construction of freight terminal. Used as proxy for HST station consumption factors. b

 Estimates reflect typical rail system construction energy consumption. 

c

 Estimates reflect energy consumption for BART system construction as surrogate for HST construction through urban area. d

 Differences between the construction-related energy consumption factors for urban and rural settings reflect differences in 

construction methods, demolition requirements, utility accommodation, etc. e

 Discreet (i.e., non-alignment-related facilities) are not differentiated between rural or urban because the data used to develop 

the respective values were not differentiated as such. Some difference between the actual values might be expected. 

Sources: U.S. Congress, Budget Office 1977; U.S. Congress, Budget Office 1982; and California State Department of 

Transportation 1983; based on construction for air freight services. 

C. CEQA SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA 

According to Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines, the means to achieve the goal of conserving energy 

include decreasing overall per capita energy consumption, decreasing reliance on natural gas and oil, 

and increasing reliance on renewable energy sources. The significance criteria discussed herein are 

used to determine whether the alternatives would have a potentially significant effect on energy use, 

including energy conservation. 

Significant long-term operational or direct energy impacts would occur if the HST Alternative would 

place a substantial demand on regional energy supply or require significant additional capacity, or 

significantly increase peak and base period electricity demand. 

Significant short-term construction energy impacts would occur if construction of the HST Alternative 

were judged likely to consume nonrenewable energy resources in a wasteful, inefficient, or 

unnecessary manner. 

A significant adverse cumulative effect would occur if implementation of the HST Alternative, 

together with regional growth, would contribute to a collectively significant shortage of regional or 

statewide energy (see Section 3.17, “Cumulative Impacts,” and Chapter 5, “Economic Growth and 

Related Impacts”). 

By contrast, if the proposed project resulted in energy savings, alleviated demand on energy 

resources, or encouraged the use of efficient transportation alternatives, it would have a beneficial 

effect. 

3.5.2 Affected Environment 

A. STUDY AREA DEFINED 

The study area for energy use was identified to be the state of California, the same as the travel 

demand forecasts prepared by Cambridge Systematics for the MTC. This differs from the statewide 

program EIR/EIS (California High Speed Rail Authority and Federal Railroad Administration 2005), 

where the study area was six of the air quality basins traversed by the statewide HST preferred 

alternative (the air basins used were identified because the majority of intercity trips taken in 

California occur within them). 

At this program level of analysis, the area studied to determine the potential impacts of the proposed 

HST system on electricity generation and transmission was the entire state of California because 

most of this infrastructure in the state contributes to the statewide grid. Therefore this analysis 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.5 Energy 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.5-6

cannot apportion to the study area the use of any particular generation facilities. In general, any 

potential impacts on electrical production that may result from the proposed HST system would affect 

statewide electricity reserves and, to a lesser degree, transmission capacity. Some general discussion 

of potential effects on regional electricity production and transmission is included. 

B. GENERAL DISCUSSION OF ENERGY RESOURCES 

California is the tenth largest worldwide energy consumer and is ranked second in consumption in 

the United States, behind Texas. Of the overall energy consumed in the state, the transportation 

sector represents the largest proportion at 46%. The industrial sector follows at 31%, residential at 

13%, and commercial at 10%. Petroleum satisfies 54% of California’s energy demand, natural gas 

33%, and electricity 13%. Coal fuel accounts for less than 1% of total energy demand in California. 

Electric power and natural gas in California are generally consumed by stationary users, whereas 

petroleum consumption is generally accounted for by transportation-related energy use (California 

Energy Commission 2002). A description of the existing energy resources and market conditions that 

could be potentially affected by the proposed alternatives is provided below. 

Petroleum

Demand for transportation services (and, therefore, petroleum/gasoline) in California mirrors the 

growth of the state’s population and economic output. The California Energy Commission (CEC) 

records of historical trends coupled with current population and economic growth and gasoline price 

projections were used to estimate that on-road miles traveled are anticipated to increase by 41% 

between 2003 and 2025—from 314 billion to 446 billion4

. Notwithstanding this large increase, the 

CEC predicts that instate road transportation fuel will remain steady at about 15 billion gallons per 

year. Although on-road gasoline demand is projected to be flat over the next 20 years, on-road 

diesel demand is projected to increase by 78%, from 2.7 billion gallons in 2003 to 4.8 billion gallons 

in 2025. Jet fuel usage is projected to increase 100%, from about 3 billion gallons in 2003 to just 

less than 6 billion gallons in 2025. (California Energy Commission 2005a.) 

Electricity

Electricity as energy is given detailed consideration in this analysis because of the projected use of 

electric energy to power the proposed HST system. Meeting electricity demand is primarily an 

operational issue for system operators—it is important in evaluating system reliability, determining 

congestion points on the electrical grid, and identifying potential areas where additional generation, 

transmission, and distribution facilities might be needed. This analysis is concerned with the 

adequacy of the generation and transmission infrastructure to accommodate the inclusion of the HST 

system in the state’s electricity grid; distribution issues are not considered at this program level of 

analysis. 

Electricity used to power the proposed HST system would be generated from within the entire state 

(i.e., not just by PG&E) and could be imported from outside the state. Therefore this analysis cannot 

apportion to the study area the use of any particular generation facilities. Issues related to electricity 

transmission are discussed below. 

Existing Electricity Demand 

Electricity demand is measured in two ways: consumption and peak demand. Electricity consumption 

is the amount of electricity—measured in gigawatt-hours5

 (GWh)—that consumers in the state use. 

 

4

 These projections use the California Air Resource Board’s 2004 California Greenhouse Gas standards, which require automakers to 

begin selling vehicles with reduced greenhouse gas emissions by model year 2009 (California Air Resources Board 2004). 

5

 Electric energy is measured in watts (W): 1,000 watts is a kilowatt (kW), 1,000 kilowatts is a megawatt (MW), and 

1,000 megawatts is a gigawatt (GW). Electric consumption over time is measured in kilowatt-hours (kWh), megawatt-hours (MWh), 

and gigawatt-hours (GWh). 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.5 Energy 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.5-7

According to the CEC, total statewide electricity consumption grew from 166,979 GWh in 1980 to 

228,038 GWh in 1990, at an estimated annual growth rate of 3.2%. The 1990s saw a slowdown in 

demand growth because of an economic recession that lasted until the middle of the decade. The 

statewide electricity consumption in 1998 was 244,599 GWh, reflecting an annual growth rate of 

0.9% between 1990 and 1998 (California Energy Commission 2006a). In 2005, statewide 

consumption was about 272,000 GWh. 

In contrast to the concept of energy consumption, peak demand—measured in megawatts—is the 

amount of generation needed to keep electrons flowing in the electricity system at any given moment 

of peak demand, usually integrated over 1 hour. A single MW is enough power to meet the expected 

electricity needs of 1,000 typical California homes (California Energy Commission 2003). For 

comparison, 1 GW would be enough power for 1,000,000 typical homes. California’s peak demand 

typically occurs on a day in August between 3 and 5 p.m. High temperatures lead to increased use 

of air conditioning, which in combination with industrial loads, commercial lighting, office equipment, 

and residential refrigeration, comprise the major consumers of electricity consumption in the peakdemand period in California (California Energy Commission 2000). In August 2006, according to CEC, 

peak electricity demand for California was expected to be 59,498 MW6

. 

Existing Electricity Generation Capacity 

In-state electricity generation, which accounted for 78% of the 2005 total electrical supply, is fueled 

by natural gas (38%); nuclear sources (14%); coal7

 (20%); large hydroelectric resources (20%); and 

renewable resources (11%), including wind, solar, and geothermal. Electricity imports in 2005 

accounted for 22% of total production. (California Energy Commission 2006c.)

In-state generation capacity was expected to be about 56,697 MW in 2006, for a total net generation 

capacity of 71,095 MW, with the inclusion of 13,118 MW of imports. As noted above, peak demand 

in August 2006 was estimated to be 59,498 MW, indicating an operating reserve8

 margin of 18.5%9

in an average temperature year. If 2006 had been a year of adverse conditions (i.e., one that had 

higher than average temperatures10, high zonal transmission limitations, and high numbers of forced 

outages), the operating reserve margin would have been 7.4% without the advantage of demand 

response programs and interruptibles.11 (California Energy Commission 2006d.) 

For comparison’s sake, Cal-ISO) declares a Stage 1 emergency when operating reserve margins fall 

below 7%; Stage 2 and 3 emergencies are declared when shortfalls of more than 5% and 1.5%, 

respectively, are imminent12 (California Energy Commission 2004a). 

Existing Transmission Capacity 

Electricity transmission capacity refers to the maximum amount of power that can be carried from the 

generating source to the utility provider and is a key component in the electrical power delivery 

system. Transmission capacity affects the: 

 

6

 Estimated. Based on average summer temperatures. 

7

 Intermontane and Mohave coal plants are considered to be in-state facilities because they are in Cal-ISO-controlled areas. 

8

 Operating Reserve - That capability above firm system demand required to provide for regulation, load forecasting error, 

equipment-forced and scheduled outages, and local area protection. It consists of spinning reserve and nonspinning reserve. 

9

 (Operating Generation - Imports with Reserves)/(Demand - Imports with Reserves) 

10 In this case, high temperatures that have a 10% chance of occurring in any one year. 

11 Customers reducing their electricity consumption in response to either price or system reliability events, and customers being paid 

for performance based on wholesale market prices. 

12 A Stage 1 declaration serves as a warning; a Stage 2 emergency requires service interruptions for some or all of selected 

customers, many of whom receive reduced rates as compensation for their agreement to be curtailed; a Stage 3 emergency 

requires involuntary curtailment of service—also referred to as rotating outages—to keep the system from collapsing. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.5 Energy 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.5-8

• Reliability of the electric power system. 

• Flexibility to diversify the mix of fuels that produces electricity by giving consumers access to an 

array of electricity sources. 

• Cost structure of the entire industry by giving low-cost power plants access to high-cost power 

markets. 

• Competition among electricity sources by giving more sources access to more markets, both near 

and far. (National Council on Electricity Policy 2004.) 

California’s electricity transmission system comprises more than 31,000 miles (50,251 kilometers) of 

bulk electric transmission lines and their supporting towers and substations. It links generation to 

load in a complex electrical network that balances supply and demand on a nearly instantaneous 

basis. In addition to the in-state transmission connections, California has a system of transmission 

interconnections that connect its electricity grid with out-of-state electricity generation; specifically, 

California is part of the Western Interconnection. With a total importing capacity of 18,170 MW13, 

California’s interconnections serve a critical role in satisfying California’s electricity consumption. 

Figure 3.5-1 depicts the state’s major transmission paths. 

Transmission lines statewide are frequently running to their capacity limits, forcing system operators 

to reduce the output from less costly generation units, while keeping less efficient generators running 

to prevent the system from overloading. In other instances, transmission lines have had outages 

causing rolling blackouts. For example, a rolling blackout occurred in southern California in August 

2005 when roughly one-half million customers had their power interrupted. The CEC has 

recommended a number of probable near-term transmission system upgrades14 that mostly affect 

transmission interconnection for transmission-strapped southern California. (California Energy 

Commission 2005c.) 

Mimicking the statewide transmission capacity limits, the Bay Area has consistently experienced 

transmission congestion for several years, with the peninsula having experienced a number of rolling 

blackouts. To alleviate the Bay Area’s congestion problems, PG&E has recently completed the 

Jefferson–Martin 230- kV) Cable Project, a regional transmission line that imports electricity from 

near San Mateo into San Francisco, and the intracity (i.e., San Francisco) Potrero–Hunters Point 115-

kV Cable. The utility also expects a second regional transmission cable (the Trans-Bay DC Cable, 400 

MW— from Strategic Transmission Plan) and a second intracity transmission project (Hunters Point–

Martin 115 kV Cable) to be completed in 2007. These projects would improve reliability and allow 

PG&E to retire older generation units, which would improve immediate transmission capacity limits in 

the Bay Area. (California Energy Commission 2005c.) 

Electricity Demand and Generation Capacity Outlook 

Extrapolating from the CEC’s baseline prediction for statewide peak electricity demand in 2016, 

2030’s peak demand would be 82,880 MW15 (California Energy Commission 2005d). Projections 

about generation capacity in 2030 are not possible because generation infrastructure decisions are 

 

13 Equivalent to approximately one-third of California’s annual peak electricity demand 

14 Includes the Palo Verde -Devers No. 2 500 kV transmission project between Arizona and California and the Sunrise Powerlink 500

kV transmission project between the SDG&E and SCE service territories, both of which would reduce congestion on lines connecting, 

provide access to lower-cost generation, provide insurance against abnormal system conditions and power outages, and increase 

operating flexibility for California grid operators, reducing market power for generators and reducing the need for additional 

generation infrastructure. The latter would also provide interconnection to renewable resources located in the Imperial Valley. Two 

other near term projects, the Antelope Transmission Project and the Imperial Valley Transmission Project, would provide significant 

interconnection with wind projects in the Tahachapi Mountains and Imperial Valley, respectively. 

15 Based on the CEC’s 2016 predictions and using the CEC’s electricity demand growth estimates to extrapolate the 2016 prediction

out to 2030. The low and high limits of the range of the forecasts are 70,486 and 74,465 MW, respectively. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Figure 3.5-1

Major Transmission Paths 

(230 to 500 kilovolt)

Source: CEC, Systems Assessment & Facilities Siting Division, August 2005.

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.5 Energy 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.5-9

not generally made more than 2–3 years in advance of construction. Projections that are available 

run through 2010; recalling that the 2006 operating reserve during peak demand was 18.5%, the 

CEC projects that operating reserve margins in average-temperature years are projected to fall in the 

short term, reaching 16.5% by 2010, based on total net generation capacity of 71,263 MW and an 

average-temperature year demand of 62,995 MW. The CEC projections also include 2010 operating 

reserve margins of just 4.3%16 in the case of adverse conditions, where demand response is realized 

and interruptible programs are used, or 0.4% where demand response is not realized and 

interruptible programs are not used, which would trigger a Stage 2 emergency in the former case 

and a Stage 3 in the latter. The CEC’s finding about the reliability of California’s electricity-generating 

resources is that generation is not keeping up with demand. The CEC states, “[c]onstruction of new 

power plants is not proceeding as planned, and the flow of new permit applications has noticeably 

decreased. California has more than 7,000 MW of permitted power plants that have not moved into 

construction. Adding to this, investor-owned utility (IOU) procurement focuses primarily upon nearand mid-term contracts, which perpetuates reliance upon the existing fleet of aging power plants.” 

(California Energy Commission 2005b.) 

Electricity Transmission Capacity Outlook 

Historically, high-voltage transmission projects were planned and constructed to maintain reliability, 

connect a remote power plant to load centers, or provide access to a region with surplus generation. 

Future transmission projects would provide other strategic benefits, including insurance against 

contingencies, market power mitigation, fuel diversity, environmental benefits, and the meeting of 

state policy objectives, such as developing renewable resources and replacing or retiring power 

plants. Before the deregulation of the electricity industry in 1996, vertically integrated utilities made 

planning decisions on both generation and transmission projects. The utilities shared information 

about their generation plants and forecasts of power plant additions planned to meet their future 

loads. The utility would set a reliability objective and then select a combination of generation and 

transmission projects to achieve the reliability objective with minimum revenue requirement. Under a 

vertically integrated utility structure, integrated planning of generation and transmission was feasible. 

(California Energy Commission 2004b.) 

Under the restructured electricity market, the integration between generation and transmission 

planning has changed. A lack of coordination between planning and decision-making for generation 

and transmission has resulted in transmission congestion because transmission infrastructure is not 

keeping pace with new generation facilities. As a result, as congestion and its associated costs go 

up, the expansion of transmission lines becomes economically justified. However, the price of power 

and the profit opportunities for generators are also affected by inefficient transmission expansion. 

(California Energy Commission 2004b.) 

Natural Gas

California is the second largest consumer of natural gas in the nation, with consumption at more than 

5.7 billion cubic feet (Bcf) (161 million cubic meters [Mcm]) per day in 2005. Approximately 42% of 

this total daily consumption was for electricity generation. Residential consumption accounts for 

22%, followed by industrial, resource extraction, and commercial consumption. CEC’s gas demand 

forecast projects continued growth at 0.07% annually through 2016, with volumes exceeding 6.1 Bcf 

(173 Mcm) daily by 2016, based on the 0.07% annual growth rate. (California Energy Commission 

2006b.) 

The total resource base (gas recoverable with today’s technology) for the lower 48 states is 

estimated to be about 975 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) (28 trillion cubic meters [Tcm]), enough to continue 

current production levels for more than 50 years. Technology enhancements would continue to 

 

16 Based on high-temperature scenario demand of 66,797 MW. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.5 Energy 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.5-10

enlarge this resource base; however, increases to production capacity are less certain (California 

Energy Commission 1999). Production in the continental United States is expected to increase from 

about 17 Tcf (0.48 Tcm) in 2005 base year to about 21 Tcf (0.59 Tcm) in 2030 (U.S. Department of 

Energy 2007). As of 2001, in-state natural gas production accounted for 15% of total consumption. 

Out-of-state production areas include the Southwest (38%), the Rocky Mountains (24%), and 

Canada (23%) (California Energy Commission 2006c). 

California’s Natural Gas Market Outlook 

Although California’s natural gas market is affected by nationwide price conditions, it has taken steps 

to insulate itself from the full magnitude of the price swing amplitudes. Since the height of the 2000-

2001 energy crisis, California has built 2.2 Bcf (62.3 Mcm) of daily capacity to deliver natural gas 

supplies from Canada, the Rocky Mountains, and the Southwest, in addition to adding almost 1 Bcf 

(28 Mcm) of daily intrastate pipeline capacity. Utilities in California have also invested in 

underground storage capacity, an effective mechanism for controlling annual costs that will allow 

them to dampen the effect of future severe price increases by drawing on stored gas instead of 

buying high-priced natural gas on the open market. Since 2000-2001, California has added 38 Bcf 

(1.1 Bcm) of storage capacity, and, starting in 2003, users of those storage facilities have been 

placing natural gas into storage at record rates, and the state’s inventory is at the high end of the 

5-year average. Additional storage capacity additions are on-going. (California Energy Commission 

2005b.) 

The state of California has also provided utilities with the flexibility and tools to manage gas costs by 

purchasing natural gas supplies under different contract lengths and pricing terms and from a variety 

of supply sources. In addition, California is in the process of increasing its supplies of electricity from 

renewable power sources, such as wind, geothermal, and solar energy. California legislation enacted 

in 2002 (Senate Bill 1078) created the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) Program, which requires 

retail sellers of electricity to increase their purchases of electricity generated by renewable sources, 

and establishes a goal of having 20% of California’s electricity generated by renewable sources by 

2017. Increasing California’s renewable supplies will diminish the state’s heavy dependence on 

natural gas as a fuel for electric power generation (California Energy Commission/California Public 

Utilities Commission 2003). 

Relationship between Natural Gas and Electricity Resources in California 

Increases in gas prices directly affect the price of electricity because of the large role that natural gas 

plays in electricity production throughout the Southwest—and in California in particular, where 

natural gas fueled 42.7% of electricity production in 2001. This percentage is likely to grow as the 

trend toward building natural gas power plants continues. During the spot-market price spike of 

February 2003, regional electricity prices rose 45% between early February 2003 and February 24, 

2003, and an additional 150% between February 24 and February 26, 2003 (California Energy 

Commission/California Public Utilities Commission 2003). Such a dramatic price spike has not 

occurred since. 

The functioning of the natural gas market, as well as the consequences of price changes in the 

natural gas market, is different from that of the electricity market. Unlike electricity, natural gas has 

the property of storability, which gives natural gas an advantage as a commodity over electricity. 

The storability of natural gas allows utilities to buy natural gas when prices are low and store it until 

prices rise, as well as price hedge in the futures markets, which mitigates short-term shortages. 

Long-term price increases are corrected by increases in production capacity, which are expected to 

bring prices down. Since the projected national in-the-ground natural gas reserves are expected to 

last for at least the next 50 years, actual supplies are not considered to be limiting, and short- and 

long-term prices are mostly a function of market conditions, assuming the trend toward 

improvements in natural gas production and transmission capacity continues (California Energy 

Commission/California Public Utilities Commission 2003). 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.5 Energy 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.5-11

Transportation Energy Consumption

Transportation accounts for a large portion of the California energy budget, with approximately 46% 

of the state’s energy consumption resulting from the transport of goods and people. The population 

in California is projected to increase 28% by the year 2030. That growth equates to almost 10 

million people (Cambridge Systematics 2007). Because of trends in travel demand, congestion, and 

other adverse travel conditions, the market for intercity travel in California that the proposed HST 

system could serve is projected to grow by up to 46% over the next 30 years. 

Although travelers in, or who are visiting or leaving, the study area have several options for intercity 

travel—automobiles on interstate and state highways, commercial airlines, conventional passenger 

trains (Amtrak) on freight and/or commuter rail tracks, and long-distance commercial bus transit—the 

automobile is the predominant mode for intercity trips. 

Transportation Energy Outlook 

The recent fuel price increases have generated renewed interest in more fuel-efficient cars and in 

living closer to the workplace. Although it is a slow process to transform an automobile fleet, drivers 

are increasingly making automobile purchasing decisions based on fuel consumption concerns. 

Automobiles powered by diesel engines and engines that are hybrids composed of both electrical and 

gasoline components offer substantial fuel-efficiency upgrades over traditional gasoline engines. 

Automobiles are most efficient when operating at steady speeds of 35–45 mph (56–72 kph) with no 

stops (U.S. Department of Energy 2006). Fuel consumption increases by about 30% when average 

speeds drop from 30 to 20 mph (48 to 32 kph), while a drop from 30 to 10 mph (48 to 16 kph) 

results in a 100% increase in fuel use with conventional automobile engines. Studies estimate that 

approximately 10% of all on-road fuel consumed is a result of congestion (California Energy 

Commission 1990). 

As of 2005, 26 million automobiles were registered to drivers in California, which equated to the state 

being the second largest consumer of petroleum fuel in the world; only the United States consumes 

more. Because of this dependence on petroleum fuels, world geopolitical events can immediately 

and adversely affect the price and adequacy of California’s fuel supply (California Energy Commission 

2006e). 

3.5.3 Environmental Consequences 

A. NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE 

In 2000, passenger trips taken in California resulted in 354.9 billion automobile VMT (571.2 billion 

automobile VKT) and 75.8 million airplane VMT (122.8 million airplane VKT). By 2030, under the No 

Project Alternative, the total number of passenger trips estimated to be taken in California would 

result in about 416.7 billion automobile VMT (670.6 billion automobile VKT) and 131.9 million airplane 

VMT (213.9 million airplane VKT). The increase in passenger trips for is reflective of population 

growth expected over the same period. 

Operational (Direct) Energy

As indicated in Table 3.5-3, the existing (Year 2000) energy used to power intrastate transportation 

was 2,002,140,708 million Btus (MMBtus), or 345 million barrels of oil. The 3.49 billion passenger 

trips estimated under the No Project Alternative would consume the equivalent of about 408 million 

barrels of oil. This is an increase of 63 million barrels of oil over existing conditions. On the one 

hand, this is a conservative estimate because, as noted in Section 3.5.3, automobile fuel efficiency 

decreases considerably as travel speed decreases below 30 mph (48 kph) and stop-and-go traffic 

increases. Because congestion levels under the No Project Alternative would likely be higher than 

they are under existing conditions, the increase in direct energy used in 2030 would have congestion-
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.5 Energy 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.5-12

related cause to be higher than the estimated 63 million barrels. To illustrate this point, if the direct 

energy consumption factor for automobiles under a more congested No Project condition (increased 

by 5%, from 5,572 Btus/VMT to 5,851 Btus/VMT, and all other factors remained the same, the total 

direct energy consumption under the No Project Alternative would increase to 83 million barrels of oil, 

as opposed to 63 million barrels. 

Key Findings 

The No Project Alternative conditions would potentially place additional demand on statewide energy 

supplies compared to existing conditions as a result of increased passenger trips, higher levels of 

congestion, and slower speeds on intercity highways. There is some level of uncertainty because it is 

not clear how the energy intensity of the state’s automobile fleet would change in the next 20 years.

Table 3.5-3 

Annual Intercity Operational Energy Consumption in the Study Area

 2000 

Existingf 

2030 No Project 

Alternativef 

Annual VMT (VKT) (millions) 

Autob 354,878 (571,121) 416,681 (670,585) 

Airplanec 76 (123) 132 (214) 

HSTd 0 0 

Annual Energy Consumption (MMBtus) 

Auto 1,977,377,605 2,321,748,527 

Airplane 24,763,102 43,128,553 

HST 0 0 

Total Energy Consumption (MMBtusa) 2,002,140,708 2,364,877,081 

Change in Total Energy from 

Existing (MMBtusa

) 

— 362,736,373 

Total Energy Consumption (Barrels of 

Oile

) (millions) 

345 408 

Change in Total Energy from 

Existing (Barrels of Oile

) (millions) 

— 63 

Notes: 

a One Btu is the quantity of energy necessary to raise 1 pound of water 1° F. b Based on 6/11/07 VMT/VHT data (Cambridge Systematics 2007). 

c

 Based on airplane passengers flights (Cambridge Systematics 2007). Airplane VMT based on average number of 

passengers per flight: 101.25 (using 70% load factor per Business Plan). d

 No HST is included in the existing conditions (2000) or No Project Alternative. e One barrel of crude oil is equal to 5.8 MMBtus. 

f Rounded. 

 

Peak-Period Electricity Demand

The No Project Alternative electricity consumption would increase slightly over existing conditions 

resulting from programmed and funded projects and growth anticipated under the No Project 

Alternative. The possible future electrification of Caltrain, commuter rail systems, and/or Amtrak 

would also increase electricity use. While these projects would be regionally significant, they are 

small in scale compared to overall electricity usage and would be captured by routine electricity 

consumption forecasts by CEC, allowing electricity generation and transmission planning to account 

for and accommodate their additions. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.5 Energy 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.5-13

Key Findings 

CEC electricity supply capacity and demand projections account for the projected routine expansion 

increases of in the state’s electricity requirements. Potential electricity demand under the No Project 

Alternative would be satisfied by expected expansion in generating capacity. No significant potential 

impacts on electricity generating capacity have been identified. (Less than significant.)

B. HIGH-SPEED TRAIN ALTERNATIVE 

The HST Alternative would increase the transportation energy use in California with respect to 

existing conditions. However, compared to the No Project Alternative the HST Alternative would use 

less energy. As indicated in Table 3.5-4, energy use would decline by the equivalent of about 22 

million barrels of oil when compared to the No Project Alternative. Additional energy savings over 

the No Project Alternative would be realized with implementation of the HST system because it would 

also ease congestion. The magnitude of the expected annual operational energy savings resulting 

from the HST system could also be lower than shown in Table 3.5-4 given the possibility of 

automobile fuel efficiency improvements. 

Table 3.5-4 

Annual Operational Energy Consumption in Study Area

 2000 2030 Alternatives

Existing No Project 

Alternativee

HST 

Alternative 

Annual VMTb, c, g (VKT) (millions) 

Autof 354,878 (575,256) 416,681 (675,440) 389,903 (632,033) 

Airplanec 76 (123) 132 (214) 73 (119) 

HST 0 0 43 (70) 

Annual Energy Consumption (MMBtusa) 

Auto 1,977,377,605 2,321,748,527 2,172,540,142 

Airplane 24,763,102 43,128,553 24,008,005 

HST 0 0 39,707,950 

Total Energy Consumption 

(MMBtus) 

2,002,140,707 2,364,877,081 2,236,266,097 

Change in Total Energy 

from Existing (MMBtus) 

 362,736,373 234,125,389 

Change in Total Energy 

from No Project 

(MMBtus) 

— — -128,610,984 

Total Energy Consumption 

(Barrels of Oild

) (millions) 

345 408 386 

Change in Total Energy 

from Existing (Barrels of 

Oild

) (millions) 

— 63 40 

Change in Total Energy 

from No Project (Barrels 

of Oild

) (millions) 

— — -22 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.5 Energy 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.5-14

 2000 2030 Alternatives

Existing No Project 

Alternativee

HST 

Alternative 

Notes: 

a One Btu is the quantity of energy necessary to raise 1 pound of water 1°F. b

 Based on airplane passengers flights (Cambridge Systematics 2007). Airplane VMT based on average number of passengers 

per flight: 101.25 (using 70% load factor per business plan HST VMT (California High-Speed Rail Authority 2000) c Does not include airplane VMT resulting from passengers making connections to other flights to continue or complete their 

journey because these are a minor portion of the HST-served market. d One barrel of crude oil is equal to 5.8 MMBtus. e

 Fuel consumption for No Project would increase beyond the figures presented here as speeds drop below 30 mph on 

congested highways. f

 Based on 6/11/07 VMT/VHT data (Cambridge Systematics 2007).

Energy intensities were calculated using passenger miles traveled (PMT)/passenger kilometers 

traveled (PKT) for each of the modes. Table 3.5-5 lists the energy intensity consumption factors of 

each of the modes. HST service would offer a sharp reduction in energy consumption per passenger 

mile (kilometer), compared to other modes, if actual ridership were to fall within the range of current 

projections and the planned operating plan were implemented. Specifically, whereas intercity trips 

taken in automobiles would average about 2,320 Btus/PMT (1,438 Btus/PKT) and those trips taken in 

airplanes would require 3,230 Btus/PMT (2,003 Btus/PKT), the HST system would require 975 

Btus/PMT (605 Btus/PKT). 

Table 3.5-5 

Energy Consumption per Passenger Mile Traveled by Mode (PMT) 

Mode Energy Consumptiond 

Intercity Passenger Vehicles (auto, van, light truck) a 2,320 Btus/PMT (1,438 Btus/PKT) 

Airplanesb 3,230 Btus/PMT (2,003 Btus/PKT) 

High-Speed Trainc 975 Btus/PMT (605 Btus/PKT) 

Notes: 

a Based on 2.4 passengers per vehicle. 

b Based on 101.25 passengers per vehicle (70% load factor). 

c Based on 994 passengers per 16-car trainset. 

d Rounded. 

Regional 

In addition to the statewide direct automobile VMT savings that would result from travelers choosing 

HST travel, the proposed HST system would potentially provide additional regional VMT reductions, 

compared to the No Project Alternative conditions. Proposed HST station location options would be 

more numerous than airports, which would result in a lessening of the average distance required for 

passengers to travel from their points of origin to the mode transfer point (and vice versa) because of 

the likelihood that one or more of the stations would be closer to their point of origin than would 

their respective regional airport. 

Key Findings 

The comparison of the HST Alternative to the No Project Alternative shows that the proposed project 

would decrease energy use statewide by 22 million barrels of oil per year. (Beneficial impact.) 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.5 Energy 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.5-15

Peak-Period Electricity Demand 

The electricity requirement of the HST Alternative operating schedule would be about 794 MW17

during peak electricity demand periods in 2030. It is difficult to analyze how such potential load 

additions would affect the statewide electricity generation and transmission system. With respect to 

electricity surplus, as noted above, such a long time horizon has uncertainty, especially on the supply 

side, and capacity additions are difficult to predict more than 2 to 3 years into the future. The 

furthest out that the CEC currently provides generation and surplus projections is 2010. Whereas the 

operating reserve in 2006 was 18.5%, the projected 2010 operating reserve is 16.5% during average 

temperature conditions18. To illustrate how the addition of the HST Alternative would affect the 

state’s electricity grid in 2010, were it hypothetically completely operational by then, the HST 

operating plans would add enough load to bring the operating reserve down to 9.0%, all else being 

equal. This is only hypothetical, and it is expected that by the time the HST system were to become 

operational, the entire system would be larger and the amount by which the HST load would cause 

the operating reserve to decline would be smaller. 

Another way to understand how the additional load would affect the statewide electricity system is to 

compare the expected load caused by the addition of the HST system to the projected demand in the 

build year (2030) because prediction horizons for demand estimates are longer than for capacity 

additions, as noted. The additional 794-MW load that would be placed on statewide electricity 

generating resources by the HST system would represent approximately 0.96% of the 2016 CECpredicted statewide electricity demand extrapolated to 2030.19 When viewed in the context of 

California’s entire electricity system, with the percentage of demand acting as a conceptual surrogate 

for supply capacity, the additional load that the HST system would place on the system is not 

significant. Moreover, the HST system would be built and become operational in stages, which would 

allow the system to gradually increase its electricity consumption rate to 794 MW instead of placing 

the entire load on the state’s production and transmission resources abruptly. The gradual increase 

would allow the in-state and out-of-state electricity generation and transmission industries and 

planners to anticipate and respond to the effects of the proposed HST system on generating and 

transmitting resources. 

Regional 

Regional impacts on the electricity grid could occur if the proposed HST system contributed to 

electricity transmission deficiencies, or bottlenecks, which were described in Section 3.5.2. If 

bottlenecks were to be aggravated by the HST system, a potentially significant impact could result. 

Through careful electrification design (i.e., design the system so that it draws power from the 

electricity grid at several places throughout the state), it would be possible to minimize or eliminate 

such potential problems. Also, bottlenecks in the current grid system are being addressed. If 

planning transmission line capacity continues to grow to anticipate statewide needs, the HST system 

would not have the potential to cause a significant impact on transmission. 

Key Findings 

The HST Alternative could cause potentially significant impacts on the state’s electricity grid if the 

generation and transmission capacity were not equipped to handle the additional load. However, the 

HST system would represent a small percentage of the generating and transmission capacity required 

to satisfy projected overall demand. Staggering the completion of construction and the start of major 

 

17 Based on an average electricity use of 74.2 kW/train mi, which equates to an average electricity use rate of the order of 12 MW 

per trainset when integrated over 1 hour. These are averages and do not reflect acceleration or changes in grade; they are for

planning purposes only. 

18 So-called adverse conditions would result in a 4.3% during higher than average temperature conditions if demand response and 

interruptibles are realized and implemented, respectively. 

19 This is consistent with the results identified in the Statewide Program EIR/EIS, which was estimated for 2020. The analysis for 

this Program EIR/EIS was for 2030. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.5 Energy 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.5-16

operations would make the load additions less abrupt than would be the case if the start of the full 

planned operations were to occur simultaneously. 

C. HST CONSTRUCTION (INDIRECT) ENERGY 

Construction of the programmed and funded transportation improvements under the No Project 

Alternative would require less energy than construction of the HST system. 

Project Construction

The HST system construction-related energy consumption would result in a one-time, nonrecoverable energy cost, which would occur during construction of on-the-ground, underground, and 

aerial facilities such as trackwork, guideways, structures, maintenance yards, stations, and support 

facilities. Details regarding energy conservation practices have not been specified for the HST 

system, which has not been designed in detail, nor have construction methods and staging been 

planned at this time. Given the scope and scale of the improvements proposed as part of the HST 

system, however, it is anticipated that the construction-related energy requirement would be 

substantial. Table 3.5-6 shows estimates of potential construction-related indirect energy 

consumption for the statewide HST system. 

Table 3.5-6 

Non-Recoverable Construction-Related Energy Consumption 

Structure 

Rural vs. 

Urbana Facility Quantityb

Energy Consumptionc

(MMBtus) 

HST guideway (at grade) Rural 2,074 guideway mi (3,361 km) 25,485,000 

Urban 619 (1,003 km) 11,829,000 

HST guideway (elevated) Rural 271 guideway mi (439 km) 15,026,000 

Urban 153 (249 km) 8,529,000 

HST guideway (below grade, cut) Rural 30 guideway mi (497 km) 3,557,000 

Urban 70 (114 km) 11,469,000 

HST guideway (below grade, tunnel) Rural 128 guideway mi (208 km) 15,034,000 

Urban 110 (178 km) 35,966,000 

HST station N/A 23 stations 1,794,000 

HST Total 128,688,000 

a

 Assumes the HST would be constructed in rural and urban areas at the following proportions: 

 - Bay Area to Central Valley: Rural (40%), Urban (60%) 

 - Sacramento to Bakersfield: Rural (95%), Urban (5%) 

 - Bakersfield to Los Angeles: Rural (70%), Urban (30%) 

 - LOSSAN: Rural (30%), Urban (70%) 

 - Los Angeles to San Diego via Inland Empire: Rural (60%), Urban (40%) b

 Measured in guideway miles for non-discrete structures (e.g., highways and HST guideways), and in structure quantities for 

discrete structures (e.g., HST stations). c

 Rounded. 

As shown in the table, the construction of the proposed HST Alternative (statewide) would 

consume 128,688,000 Btus, or about 22 million barrels of oil. Energy savings resulting from 

operation of the HST Alternative would repay the construction energy consumption in about 

1 year. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.5 Energy 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.5-17

Secondary Facilities 

It is reasonable to assume that secondary facilities, such as those used in the production of cement, 

steel, and so on, would employ all reasonable energy conservation practices in the interest of 

minimizing the cost of doing business. Therefore, it can reasonably be assumed that constructionrelated energy consumption by secondary facilities would not consume nonrenewable energy 

resources in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary manner under either HST Alternative. 

Construction of the HST Alternative is anticipated to take a number of years. Construction would 

occur in stages, and some segments would be open for operation while others are still under 

construction. Given the scope and scale of the HST system, it is anticipated that secondary 

construction-related energy requirements would be substantial. 

Due to the scope and scale of the improvements proposed as part of the HST system, constructionrelated energy impacts, both project and secondary, would be potentially significant. Construction of 

the HST Alternative would potentially represent a significant use of nonrenewable resources. 

3.5.4 Role of Design Practices in Avoiding and Minimizing Effects 

The selected electrically powered HST technology is energy efficient, requiring substantially less energy 

than other modes of intercity travel. Implementation of the HST Alternative throughout the state is 

anticipated to reduce energy use over the No Project Alternative. 

This is a broad program-level analysis reviewing potential statewide energy use and impacts related to 

the proposed HST Alternative. The HST system would be designed to minimize electricity consumption. 

The design particulars would be developed at the project level of analysis, but would include the 

following: 

• Use regenerative braking to reduce energy consumption of the system. 

• Minimize grade changes in steep terrain areas to reduce the use of electricity during peak periods. 

• Use energy-saving equipment and facilities to reduce electricity demand. 

• Maximize intermodal transit connections to reduce automobile VMT (VKT) related to the HST system. 

• Develop and implement a construction energy conservation plan. 

• Develop potential measures to reduce energy consumption during operation and maintenance 

activities. 

3.5.5 Mitigation Strategies and CEQA Significance Conclusions 

Based on the analysis above, and considering the discussion in CEQA Appendix F on energy conservation, 

the HST Alternative would have a potentially significant impact related to long-term electric power 

consumption when viewed on a systemwide basis. It is calculated that the statewide HST system would 

increase the projected statewide electricity demand by approximately 0.96% in 2030. The electricity 

demand is consistent with what was identified for the statewide HST system in the Statewide Program 

EIR/EIS. Although the HST system would result in an increase in electricity demand, it also represents a 

mode of transportation that is more energy efficient than travel by automobile. The HST system would 

result in an overall reduction in total energy consumption (combined electric power demand and oil 

consumption). The following mitigation strategy as well as the design practices discussed in Section 

3.5.4 would be applied to further reduce operational energy consumption and can be refined and applied 

at the project-level. 

• Locate HST maintenance and storage facilities within proximity to major stations/termini. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.5 Energy 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.5-18

Construction of the HST Alternative would result in one-time non-recoverable energy consumption costs 

in addition to energy consumed by the planned transportation improvements included in the No Project 

Alternative. The result of the construction of the HST Alternative would be a new transportation mode 

that would reduce fuel consumption as compared to the 2030 No Project Alternative. At the program 

level this impact is considered significant due to the uncertainty of future projections of energy demand 

and generation capacity to 2030. The following mitigation strategies can be refined and applied at the 

project-level to reduce this impact: 

• Develop and implement a construction energy conservation plan. 

• Use energy efficient construction equipment and vehicles. 

• Locate construction material production facilities on-site or in proximity to project construction sites. 

• Develop and implement a program encouraging construction workers to carpool or use public 

transportation for travel to and from construction sites. 

The above mitigation strategies are expected to reduce the short-term and long-term electric power 

consumption impacts of the HST system to a less-than-significant level. Additional environmental 

assessment would allow a more precise evaluation in the second-tier, project-level environmental 

analyses. 

3.5.6 Subsequent Analysis 

Subsequent energy analysis would be required in a project-level environmental document. Detailed 

analysis of base and peak-period electricity requirements and transmission infrastructure would be 

required to more precisely assess the adequacy of electricity generation and transmission capacity 

relative to demand for each alignment alternative to be pursued. Comprehensive traffic analysis for 

future conditions would be required to assess regional energy impacts in more detail for each segment. 

Subsequent energy analysis at the project level would follow the methodology applied in this evaluation 

but would employ more detailed traffic and electrical input data for the energy consumption analysis. 

Energy consumption factors would be updated using the latest available published information. Detailed 

construction staging, sequencing, methods, and practices would be necessary to support a quantitative 

analysis of construction energy consumption. 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.6-1

3.6 Electromagnetic Fields and Electromagnetic Interference 

This section describes the potential impacts of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) associated with operation of 

the No Project and the HST Alignment Alternatives1

. The principal topics discussed in this section 

are potential impacts on personal health and potential impacts on electronic and electrical 

devices as a result of electromagnetic interference (EMI). 

3.6.1 Regulatory Requirements 

Neither the federal government nor the State of California has established regulatory limits for EMF 

exposure. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulates sources of radiofrequency (RF) 

fields to maintain the quality of wireless communications across the spectrum. The FCC, which does not 

regulate for health and safety, has adopted regulations applicable to EMF exposure that were derived 

from health and safety evaluations made by the American National Standards Institute/Institute of 

Electrical and Electronic Engineers (ANSI/IEEE) and the National Council on Radiation Protection (NCRP). 

FCC regulations apply to devices that produce RF radiation, such as the proposed HST wireless systems, 

for both operational and amenity purposes. FCC regulations otherwise apply only if HST operations (RF 

interference) interfere with legitimate spectral uses. 

Voluntary standards for EMF exposure have been developed by the International Committee on 

Electromagnetic Safety (ICES), which is sponsored by the IEEE. The federal and state governments do 

not enforce these voluntary standards. The standards are based on studies of electrostimulation (i.e., 

nerve and muscle responses to the internal electric field [EF] in the body). ICES standards recommend 

maximum permissible 60-Hz magnetic field (MF) exposure levels that are a few thousand times higher 

than 0.3 to 0.4 microtesla (μT) (3 to 4 milligauss [mG]). Magnetic fields greater than 0.3 to 0.4 μT are 

relatively uncommon exposures that are found in a small percentage of homes that have been shown to 

have a possible association with childhood leukemia based on inconclusive evidence (National Institute of 

Environmental Health Sciences 1998, 1999; International Agency for Research on Cancer 2002). 

Unresolved scientific issues concerning health effects of power frequency related extremely low frequency 

(ELF) MFs were examined extensively by the California Department of Health Services (Neutra et al. 

2002) in response to a request from the California Public Utilities Commission. No evidence substantiates 

a relationship between ELF EFs and cancer (International Agency for Research on Cancer 2002), and the 

low-level EFs typically found in homes have not been associated with other diseases (National Institute of 

Environmental Health Sciences 1998; Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers 2002). The 

ANSI/IEEE standards; NCRP recommendations, International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation 

protection (ICNIRP) guidelines, American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, Inc. (ACGIH) 

guidelines suggest maximum permissible 60-hertz (Hz) EF levels for public exposure for electric 

transmission from 4.2 to 10 kV per meter. 

3.6.2 Characteristics of Electromagnetic Fields 

EMFs occur both naturally and as a result of human activity. Naturally occurring EMFs include those 

caused by weather and the earth’s MF. EMFs also are generated by technological application of the 

electromagnetic spectrum for uses such as the generation, transmission, and local distribution of 

electricity; electric appliances; communication systems; marine and aeronautical navigation; ranging and 

detection equipment; industrial processes; and scientific research. 

EMFs are described in terms of their frequency, or the number of times the EMF changes direction in 

space each second. Natural and human-generated EMFs encompass a broad frequency spectrum. In the 

United States, the electric power system operates at 60 Hz, or cycles per second, meaning that the field 

 

1

 See Section 3.0, Introduction, for an explanation of how this section fits together with the HST Network Alternatives presented in 

Chapter 7, as well as for an overview of the information presented in the other chapters. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.6 Electromagnetic Fields and 

Electromagnetic Interference 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.6-2

reverses its direction 60 times per second. In Europe, some parts of Japan, and many other regions, the 

frequency of electric power is 50 Hz. Radio and other communications operate at much higher 

frequencies; many are in the range of 500,000 Hz (500 kilohertz) to 3 billion Hz (3 gigahertz). In areas 

not immediately adjacent to transmission lines, 60-Hz EMFs exist because of electric power systems and 

uses such as building wiring and electrical equipment or appliances. 

The strength of MFs often is measured in μT or mG. As a baseline for comparison, the geomagnetic field 

ranges from 50 to 70 μT (500 to 700 mG) at the surface of the earth. Research on ambient MFs in 

homes and buildings in several western states has found average MF levels within rooms to be 

approximately 0.1 μT (1 mG), and measured values range from 0.9 to 2.0 μT (9 to 20 mG) in the 

immediate area of appliances (Severson et al. 1988, Silva et al. 1988). 

Depending on the configuration of the source, the strength of an EMF decreases in proportion to distance 

or distance squared, or even more rapidly. Because the rate of decrease and the distance at which 

impacts become insignificant depend on technical specifications, such as the source’s geometric shape, 

size, height above the ground, and operating frequency, it is not possible to define a characteristic 

distance for the extent of field effects that applies in general for all sources. Because of their rapid 

decrease in strength with distance, EMFs in excess of background levels are likely to be experienced only 

comparatively near sources. Consequently, only persons on or close to the proposed HST system would 

be likely to experience such increases, and although HST operations could introduce some very low but 

measurable changes in 60-Hz MFs up to 1,000 ft or more from the right-of-way, these low-level changes 

are not known to be harmful or hazardous. ELF is variously defined as having a lower limit of greater 

than zero (3 or 30 Hz) and an upper limit of 30, 100, 300, or 3,000 Hz. The HST catenary and 

distribution systems would have primarily 60-Hz fields. 

In addition to the 60-Hz EMFs generated by the power supply system, the HST Alignment Alternatives 

would generate incidental RF fields and also would use RF fields for wireless communications. The 60-Hz 

electric and MFs from power-supply systems would occur everywhere near the energized conductors, but 

only the MFs would vary in strength, depending on load. Load would depend on the number of trains in 

the segment and their operating conditions (acceleration, speed, weight of vehicles, passengers and 

freight, grade). Hence, in time, the MFs are variable, whereas the EFs are constant. Similarly, EFs along 

the route would be similar for a given distribution and transmission voltage, whereas MFs along the route 

would depend on nearby loads. Therefore, daily MF averages would differ for different locales because of 

different local HST traffic. The information presented in this document concerns primarily EMFs at power 

frequencies of 50 or 60 Hz and RFs produced intentionally by HST communications or unintentionally by 

electric discharges (arcing) between the catenary wire and the train’s power pickup and other sources of 

corona discharge typical of high-voltage systems. EMI occurs when the EMFs produced by a source 

adversely affect operation of an electrical, a magnetic, or an electromagnetic device. EMI may be caused 

by a source that intentionally radiates EMFs (e.g., a broadcast station) or one that does so incidentally 

(e.g., an electric motor). 

3.6.2.1 CEQA Significance Criteria 

For purposes of this discussion, an HST alignment alternative would be considered to result in a 

significant effect on the environment if it would expose people to a documented health risk associated 

with EMFs or interfere with implanted biomedical devices. 

3.6.3 Environmental Consequences: Past Findings 

In the statewide program EIR/EIS (California High Speed Rail Authority and Federal Railroad 

Administration 2005) EMF/EMI related to the HST Alternative was considered by conducting a search of 

existing literature and expert opinion (volunteer scientists and engineers from academia and industry 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.6 Electromagnetic Fields and 

Electromagnetic Interference 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.6-3

working in accordance with IEEE rules) based on that literature. Issues concerning EMF2

 biological and 

health effects for the HST alternative are the subject of the scientific discipline known as 

bioelectromagnetics, which is served by the Bioelectromagnetics Society, other scientific organizations, 

and extensive scientific literature that has been critically reviewed by scientific expert committees 

convened by a number of national and international bodies. This body of information was used in the 

statewide program EIR/EIS to describe the potential effects of each of the system alternatives. The 

medical and scientific communities have been unable to determine whether usual residential exposures to 

EMFs cause health effects or to establish any standard or level of exposure that is known to be either 

safe or harmful. 

There is no scientific consensus that there are adverse effects of low-level EMFs. Numerous studies have 

addressed but failed to establish any significant adverse health effects, and various industry, government 

and scientific organizations with expertise in EMF technology have produced a range of voluntary 

standards that represent their best judgment of what levels are considered safe. The ELF EMF that 

would result from the operation of the HST system is substantially below any standards examined by 

these experts. Consequently, the Authority and the FRA found that, based on review of the scientific 

evidence and considering the CEQA Appendix G thresholds of significance for effects on human beings, 

the increased level of EMF as a result of the HST system operation would be less than significant at a 

programmatic level under CEQA and are not significant under NEPA. 

Likewise, the HST system would introduce additional EMI at levels for which there are no established 

adverse impacts. Extensive studies have failed to establish any specific levels of additional EMI/EMF 

exposures that result in adverse health effects. The Authority and FRA found, considering the Appendix 

G thresholds of significance for effects on human beings, that EMI/EMF exposures are not significant at 

the programmatic level under CEQA or NEPA. 

The FRA also has concluded an extensive study of EMF/EMI related to the conversion of a section of 

Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor to electric traction (Federal Railroad Administration 2006) The study 

quantified the levels of ELF (3–3,000 Hz) EMFs and RF (300 kHz to 50 GHz) electric fields near electric 

facilities along Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor (NEC) between New Haven, Connecticut, and Boston, 

Massachusetts. 

Measurements were taken close to traction power stations and the electric conductors that make up the 

overhead catenary system on railroad rights-of-way and showed typical increases of one to two orders of 

magnitude for EMFs from pre-electrification measurements. Other measurements showed that away 

from the power equipment or the overhead catenary system, very little difference existed between preand post-electrification measurements, indicating that the impact on surrounding areas was minimal. 

At locations above or under an electrified rail line (overpasses or underpasses), no significant (greater 

than 1 mG) very low frequency (VLF) (3–30 kHz) or low frequency (LF) (30–300 kHz) MFs were 

measured. Measured broadband RF electric fields were relatively low, with a maximum measurement of 

2% of the FCC occupational standard at 5 m from the track centerline. Also, measured broadband RF 

electric fields at the overpass and underpass were near zero. 

The study characterized the ELF and RF field levels in the passenger compartment and operator’s cab of 

an Acela Express train for comparison with earlier data (1993 Amtrak EMF survey). 

The ELF MF measurements showed significant temporal variability because of operation 

of the train. This variability is common to all electric transportation systems. The 

measured ELF electric fields in the passenger compartment were a maximum of 52 volts 

 

2

 EMF covers ELF and RF forms of electric and magnetic fields, and electromagnetic fields. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.6 Electromagnetic Fields and 

Electromagnetic Interference 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.6-4

per meter (V/m) and average less than 4 V/m. (Federal Railroad Administration 2006, 

page 3) 

The study concluded by comparing the maximum ELF electric and MF readings with exposure limits in the 

ACGIH and IEEE C95.6 standards. 

None of the limits were exceeded. All RF readings were logged directly as a percentage 

of the occupational FCC standard. None of the readings were greater than 3% of this 

standard. Thus, all readings were also less than 3 percent of the IEEE C95.1 and ACGIH 

occupational limits. Because the general public limits are lower than the occupational by 

factor of 2.2, the electric field limits for the general public were similarly never exceeded. 

(U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration. 2006, page 3) 

This study reinforces the conclusion that minimal EMI/EMF exposures at levels for which there are no 

documented health risks are anticipated and that EMI/EMF concerns are less than significant at the 

programmatic level under CEQA and not significant under NEPA. Furthermore, the Authority in the CEQA 

findings and the FRA in the ROD for the statewide program EIR/EIS adopted design practices and 

mitigation strategies to address potential EMI/EMF issues for the HST system to be applied and refined at 

the project-level in the future. It is anticipated that the use of the design practices and mitigation 

strategies will reduce exposure to EMFs and reduce the potential for EMI with biomedical devices to the 

lowest practical level. These design practices and mitigation strategies are summarized in the following 

sections. 

The prior analysis of alignment alternatives for the HST system considered the diverse geography, 

communities, and land uses that would be traversed by the system, including the diversity of potential 

EMF exposures, although very low, in widely varied urban, suburban, rural, agricultural, and industrial 

areas, and concluded that at the program-level of analysis potential EMI/EMF impacts were not 

distinguishable among the alignment alternatives. The same is true for this program level analysis of 

potential alignment alternatives to connect the San Francisco Bay Area and the Central Valley portions of 

the HST system. 

3.6.4 Design Practices 

Standard design practices for overhead catenary power supply system substations, transmission lines, 

and vehicles of the approved HST system include the use of appropriate materials, spacing, and, if 

necessary, shielding to avoid potential EMF/EMI impacts and to reduce the EMFs and EMI to a practical 

minimum. 

3.6.5 Mitigation Strategies and CEQA Significance Conclusions 

Based on the analysis above, and considering the incorporation of design practices, each HST alignment 

alternative would result in some increase in exposure to EMFs but at levels for which there are no 

documented health risks. The impact therefore is considered less than significant at the programmatic 

level. The HST alignment alternatives would have similar extremely low potential for ELF EMFs to 

interfere with biomedical devices. The impact is considered less than significant at the programmatic 

level. While EMF impacts are considered less than significant at the programmatic level, in addition to 

the design strategies described above and out of an abundance of caution, the mitigation strategies 

described below for avoiding and reducing EMF exposures to a practical minimum will be carried forward 

for consideration in project-level analyses for the HST system. 

• Reduce EMI with catenary components that minimize arcing and radiation of RF energy. 

• Reduce potential EMI by selecting RF devices designed for a high degree of electromagnetic 

capability. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.6 Electromagnetic Fields and 

Electromagnetic Interference 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.6-5

• Reduce EMI with electronic filters. 

• Reduce EMI by relocating receiving antennas or by changing antenna design to antennas with 

greater directional gain. 

• Establish safety criteria and procedures and personnel practices to avoid exposing employees with 

implanted medical devices to EMF levels that may cause interference with such devices. 

3.6.6 Subsequent Analysis 

The following issues would be evaluated as part of the project-level analysis of an HST system. 

• Proximity of occupied structures to new high-voltage transmission lines serving HST substations. 

• EMFs at passenger stations. 

• EMFs in the vehicle compartment. 

• EMFs at specific locations used by the train crew. 

• Earth-return currents or power flows in circuits along the rails, where some fraction of the current 

finds its way back to substation or generating station through the earth for various regions and soil 

conditions, and the effects of different design and construction practices on these currents. The 

substations and generating stations themselves would be soundly connected to ground, allowing the 

earth currents to return there. 

• Identification of specific structures (e.g., pipelines, cables, fences) that are particularly susceptible to 

induced ELF currents and methods for mitigation. 

• Identification of receptors (e.g., telecommunications and research facilities) at specific locations with 

possibly greater sensitivity to EMI impacts. 

• Spectral composition of RF generated by the pantograph-catenary contact under operating 

conditions. 

• Technical features (e.g., frequency, field strengths, modulation system) of the right-of-way-to-train 

wireless communications system. 

• Possible development of an electromagnetic compatibility control plan (as described in APTA SS-E010-98) to characterize EMI sources, reduction techniques, and susceptibility control procedures 

(shielding, surge protection, fail-safe circuit redesign, changed location of antennas or susceptible 

equipment, redesign of equipment, enclosures for equipment); inclusion of a safety analysis and 

failure analysis; and addressing of grounding or shorting hazards. 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.7-1

3.7 Land Use and Planning, Communities and Neighborhoods, Property, 

and Environmental Justice 

This section evaluates the potential impacts of the No Project and HST Alignment Alternatives on land 

use compatibility, communities and neighborhoods, and property.1

 This section also addresses 

environmental justice in accordance with the provisions of Executive Order (EO) 12898. This evaluation 

describes how existing conditions compare with the No Project Alternative and how the No Project 

Alternative compares with the potential impacts of the HST Alignment Alternatives and station location 

options in the region being studied. 

3.7.1 Regulatory Requirements and Methods of Evaluation 

A. REGULATORY PROVISIONS 

Land Use, Communities and Neighborhoods, and Property

These sections address the potential effects of each of the alignment alternatives on existing and 

planned land uses. These sections include a discussion of the existing uses in and adjacent to areas 

where property acquisition may be needed for an alignment alternative, an analysis of the changes to 

these uses that may occur with an alignment alternative, a discussion of potential inconsistencies 

with land use plans, and identification of general mitigation strategies. The discussion of potential 

inconsistencies with planned land uses does not imply that the Authority, a state agency, would be 

subject to such plans or local ordinances, either directly or through the NEPA or CEQA process. The 

information is provided to indicate potential land use changes that could result in environmental 

impacts. 

Environmental Justice

EO 12898, known as the federal environmental justice policy, requires federal agencies to address to 

the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law the disproportionately high adverse human 

health and environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities, on minority and lowincome populations in the United States. Federal agency responsibilities under this EO also apply to 

Native American programs. Department of Transportation (DOT) Order 5610.2 on environmental 

justice defines “disproportionately high and adverse effect on minority and low-income populations” 

to mean an adverse effect that is predominately borne by a minority population and/or a low-income 

population or that would be suffered by the minority population and/or low-income population and 

that is appreciably more severe or greater in magnitude than the adverse effect that would be 

suffered by the nonminority population and/or non-low-income population (Department of 

Transportation Order 5610.2, Appendix Definitions, sub.[g]). 

The California Government Code defines environmental justice as the “fair treatment of people of all 

races, cultures, and incomes with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and 

enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies” (California Government Code § 

65040.12[e]). There are no specific state procedures prescribed for consideration of environmental 

justice issues related to the proposed HST Alignment Alternatives. 

B. METHODS OF EVALUATION OF IMPACTS 

The analysis was conducted using U.S. Census 2000 block group information/data compiled in a 

geographic information systems (GIS) format, local community general plans or regional plans, and 

land use information provided by the planning agencies in each of the regions. Existing and future 

conditions were described for the No Project Alternative by documenting existing information for 

 

1

 See Section 3.0, Introduction, for an explanation of how this section fits together with the HST Network Alternatives presented in 

Chapter 7, as well as for an overview of the information presented in the other chapters. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.7 Land Use and Planning 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.7-2

existing and planned future land use policy near HST Alignment Alternatives and potential station 

location options, development patterns for employment and population growth, demographics, 

communities and neighborhoods, housing, and economics. The No Project Alternative was compared 

to the planned uses reflected in general plans and regional plans to see if it may result in potential 

effects on future development. The general and regional plans consulted for this section are listed in 

Chapter 14, “Sources Used in Document Preparation.” 

The ranking systems described below were used to evaluate potential impacts for the HST Alignment 

Alternatives for land use changes, land use compatibility, and property. Potential impacts on 

communities and neighborhoods were also considered. The presence of minority populations and 

low-income populations in the study area for an alignment alternative was identified to consider 

potential environmental justice issues. Because this is a programmatic environmental review, the 

analysis of these potential impacts was performed on a broad scale to permit a comparison of relative 

differences among the alignment alternatives. Further evaluation of potential impacts would occur at 

the project-level environmental review. 

Land Use Compatibility

Future land use compatibility is based on information from general plans and other regional and local 

transportation planning documents. These documents were examined to assess an alignment 

alternative’s potential consistency with the goals and objectives defined therein. An alignment 

alternative is considered highly compatible if it would be located in areas planned for transportation 

multi-modal centers or corridor development, redevelopment, economic revitalization, transit-oriented 

development, or high-intensity employment. Compatibility would be considered low if an alignment 

alternative would be potentially inconsistent with local or regional planning documents. For example, 

homes and schools are more sensitive to changes that may result in increased noise and vibration 

(see Section 3.4, “Noise and Vibration”) or increased levels of traffic congestion (see Section 3.1, 

“Traffic, Transit, Circulation, and Parking”). Industrial uses, however, are typically less sensitive to 

these types of changes because they interfere less with normal industrial activities. Because in this 

analysis an area’s sensitivity or compatibility is based on the presence of residential properties, low, 

medium, and high levels of potential compatibility are identified based on the percentage of 

residential area affected, the proximity of the residential area to facilities included in an alignment 

alternative, and the presence of local or regional uses (such as parks, schools, and employment 

centers). For highway corridors (under the No Project Alternative) and for proposed alignment 

alternatives, land use compatibility was assessed using GIS layers (or aerial photographs where 

available) to identify proximity to housing and population and to determine whether the alignment 

alternatives would be within or outside an existing right-of-way in the study area. Potential impacts 

are considered low if existing land uses within a potential alignment, station, or maintenance facility 

area are found to be compatible with the land use changes that may result from the alignment 

alternative. The type of improvement that would be associated with the alignment alternative would 

also affect the level of potential impact. Improvements such as potential widening of an existing 

right-of-way or the need for new right-of-way were considered to have a low compatibility with 

agricultural land. Conversely, if the improvement would be contained within the existing right-of-way 

or within a tunnel, the alignment alternative was considered compatible with agricultural land. 

Table 3.7-1 summarizes the potential compatibility rating of existing and planned land use types with 

the potential HST Alignment Alternatives and station location options. Therefore, where potential 

compatibility would be rated low, the potential for adverse impacts would be higher, and where 

potential compatibility would be rated high, the potential for adverse impacts would be lower. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.7 Land Use and Planning 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.7-3

Table 3.7-1 

Compatibility of Land Use Types 

Low Compatibility Medium Compatibility High Compatibility 

Single-family residential, 

neighborhood and community 

parks, habitat conservation area, 

elementary/middle school, 

agricultural (widened or new 

right-of-way needed) 

Multifamily residential, high 

schools, low-intensity industrial, 

hospitals 

Business park/regional commercial, 

multifamily residential, existing or planned 

transit center, high intensity industrial park, 

service commercial, commercial recreation, 

college, transportation/utilities, highintensity government facilities, airport or 

train station, agricultural (tunnel or no new 

right-of-way needed) 

Communities and Neighborhoods

A potential impact on a community or neighborhood was identified if an alignment alternative would 

create a new physical barrier, isolating one part of an established community from another and 

potentially resulting in a physical disruption to community cohesion. Improvements to existing 

transportation corridors, including grade separations, would not generally result in new barriers. 

Property

Assessment of potential property impacts is based on the types of land uses adjacent to the 

particular proposed alignment alternative, the amount of right-of-way potentially needed due to the 

construction type, and the land use sensitivity to potential impacts. Impacts include potential 

acquisition, displacement and relocation of existing uses, or demolition of properties. 

In some instances, relatively minor strips of property would be needed for temporary construction 

easements or permanent right-of-way for the proposed HST Alignment Alternatives. In other 

instances, development of proposed facilities could result in acquisition, displacement, and/or 

relocation of existing structures. The types of property impacts that could occur include displacement 

of a residence or business or division of a farm or other land use in a way that makes it harder to 

use. Mitigation may also be required to maintain property access. Potential property impacts were 

ranked high, medium, or low, as summarized below in Table 3.7-2 (see Table 3.7-A-1 in Appendix 

3.7-A for more detail). 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.7 Land Use and Planning 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.7-4

Table 3.7-2 

Rankings of Potential Property Impacts 

Facility 

Requirements 

Type of Development 

Residential Nonresidential 

Rural/ 

Suburban 

Suburban/

Urban Urban 

Rural 

Developed 

Suburban 

Industrial/ 

Commercial 

Urban 

Business 

Parks/ 

Regional 

Commercial 

Rural 

Undeveloped 

No additional 

right-of-way 

needed (also 

applies to 

tunnel 

segments for 

HST Alignment 

Alternatives) 

Low Low Low Low Low Low Low 

Widening of 

existing right-ofway required 

Medium Medium High Low Medium High Low 

New corridor 

(new right-ofway required; 

includes aerial 

and at-grade 

arrangements) 

High High High Medium Medium High Low to 

medium 

To determine potential property impacts, the land uses within 50 ft (15 m) of either side of the 

existing corridor or within 50 ft (15 m) of both sides of the centerline for new HST alignments were 

characterized by type and density of development. Densities of structures, buildings, and other 

elements of the built environment were generally higher in urbanized areas. Rural/suburban

residential refers to low-density, single-family homes. Suburban/urban residential refers to medium 

density, multifamily housing, such as townhouses, duplexes, and mobile homes. Urban residential 

refers to high-density multifamily housing, such as apartment buildings. Rural developed

nonresidential uses typically occur in nonurbanized areas and often include developed agricultural 

land, such as vineyards and orchards. Suburban industrial/commercial refers to medium density 

nonresidential uses and includes some industrial uses, as well as transportation, utilities, and 

communication facilities. Urban business parks/regional commercial refers to nonresidential uses that 

occur in urbanized areas and includes such uses as business parks, regional commercial facilities, and 

other mixed use/built-up uses. Nonrural undeveloped land includes cropland, pasture, rangeland, 

and few structures. The classification of development type was based on land use information 

provided by the planning agencies in each of the regions. 

Environmental Justice

This analysis is based on identifying the presence of minority populations and low-income populations 

in the study area (0.25 mi [0.40 km] from a potential alignment), and generally in the counties 

crossed by the alignment alternatives. The assessment was done using U.S. Census 2000 

information and alignment information to determine if minority or low-income populations exist within 

the study areas, and if they do, whether the alignments would be within or adjacent to an existing 

transportation right-of-way (lower potential for impacts) or a new alignments (higher potential for 

impacts). 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.7 Land Use and Planning 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.7-5

The analysis was used to determine whether: 

• At least 50% of the population in the study area may be minority or low income. 

• The percentage of minority or low-income population in the study area is at least 10% greater 

than the average generally in the county or community. 

The assessment of potential for impacts on minority and low-income populations considered the size 

and type of right-of-way needed for the alignment alternatives. For example, if an alignment 

alternative would be within an existing right-of-way, the potential for adverse impacts would be 

lower. If the alignment alternative would be on new right-of-way, the potential for adverse impacts 

may be higher. The potential alignment alternatives, however, have been identified and described to 

largely use or be adjacent to existing transportation rights-of-way to avoid or reduce potential 

impacts on natural resources and existing communities to the extent feasible and practicable (see 

Chapter 2, “Alternatives”). In some cases, the minority and low-income thresholds identified above 

were met or exceeded, but the geographic area (of the block group) was large and sparsely 

populated. In these areas, the minority and/or low income populations are distant from the proposed 

alignment alternative. For these areas, the environmental justice impacts were considered as low, 

given the distance between the environmental justice populations and the HST line. 

Because this is a program-level document, the analysis considers the alternatives on a broad scale. 

The Statewide Program EIR/EIS concluded that the overall system would not result in a 

disproportionate impact on minority or low-income populations. Additional analysis would take place 

during project-level analysis to consider potential localized impacts. 

C. CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING CEQA SIGNIFICANCE 

Under CEQA, two types of potential impacts are considered in the determination of significance for 

the land use evaluation; namely, the potential for the project to: 

• Physically divide an established community or be incompatible with adjacent land uses in the 

short or long term. 

• Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over 

the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or 

zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. 

The evaluation methods described above provide for the review of these types of potential impacts. 

3.7.2 Affected Environment 

A. STUDY AREA DEFINED 

The study area for land use compatibility, communities and neighborhoods, and environmental justice 

is 0.25 mi (0.40 km) on either side of the centerline of the rail and highway corridors included in the 

alignment alternatives and the same distance around station location options and other potential 

HST-related facilities. This is the extent of area where the alignment alternative might result in 

changes to land use; the type, density, or patterns of development; or socioeconomic conditions. For 

the property impacts analysis, the study area is narrower—50 ft (15 m) on either side of the 

alignment centerlines—to better represent the properties most likely to be affected by the 

improvements in the alignment alternatives. Land uses in the project area are shown in Figure 3.7-1. 

The planned land use for all alignment alternatives is generally described by city and county general 

plans in the area of the alignment alternatives. Several regulatory agencies and special districts also 

have future development plans that are considered in this analysis for lands the alignment 

alternatives would cross. Communities have typically recognized and incorporated the existing rail 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.7 Land Use and Planning 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.7-6

and highway corridors in their general land use plans, and most communities encourage transitoriented development and transit facilities to relieve highway congestion and improve mobility. 

Other resources, such as U.S. Census 2000 data, California Department of Finance data, aerial 

photos, and field observations, were used to document existing and future (Year 2030) conditions for 

demographics, communities, and neighborhoods. 

B. DISCUSSION OF RESOURCES BY CORRIDOR 

This section briefly discusses the land use–related resources by corridor along HST Alignment 

Alternatives in the study area and vicinity. The following five land use-related resources are 

addressed: (1) existing and planned land use, (2) population characteristics, (3) income, 

(4) neighborhood and community characteristics, and (5) housing. 

For this discussion, the source of the land use data was local governments and regional agencies, 

such as metropolitan planning organizations. The source of demographic information (existing 

population and projects, ethnicity, and income) was primarily U.S. Census 2000 data and the 

California Department of Finance. 

According to the 2000 U.S. Census, minority persons are defined as being nonwhite persons, 

including those of Hispanic origin. Low-income populations are defined as having a median 

household income at or below Department of Health and Human Service poverty guidelines. 

San Francisco to San Jose Corridor

This corridor extends from the areas on the west side of the San Francisco Bay along the Caltrain rail 

line from the City of San Francisco to the City of San Jose. 

Existing Land Use 

San Francisco to Dumbarton: The San Francisco to Dumbarton alignment alternative begins at the 

Transbay Transit Center located in the San Francisco Financial District and continues along the 

existing Caltrain rail line to Redwood City. The primary land use in the immediate vicinity of this 

alignment alternative is the rail right-of-way. Land uses in the downtown San Francisco area of the 

Caltrain rail line are primarily urban, industrial, and transportation uses, with some retail, live/work 

loft, residential, and commercial uses. In south San Francisco, land uses are primarily light industrial, 

with some commercial and residential uses, with mostly open space through the Brisbane lagoon 

area. The San Bruno area presents a mixture of park/open space and very low-density residential 

housing with some commercial and light industrial uses. 

In Millbrae, the area is designated as “unclassified” and contains low-density central business, 

planned unit development, with some vacant, underutilized, and industrial uses adjacent to the rightof-way. The San Francisco International Airport is located to the east. In the Burlingame portion of 

the corridor, land uses include commercial, residential, and light industrial. The tracks pass directly 

adjacent to Burlingame High School and Washington Park. Land uses adjacent to the Caltrain rail 

line within the City of San Mateo are commercial, office, a central business district, and single- and 

multifamily residential, including the San Mateo County Exposition Building and fairgrounds and the 

Hillsdale Shopping Mall. Within the City of Belmont, the primary land uses are transportation and 

service commercial with some high-density residential areas. Single-family residential, transportation, 

and commercial uses are within the City of San Carlos. Land uses in Redwood City are predominately 

research-oriented and industrial, with some residential. 

Dumbarton to San Jose: The Dumbarton to San Jose alignment alternative begins in Atherton and 

continues along the existing Caltrain rail line to the San Jose/Diridon Station. The primary use in the 

Town of Atherton is low-density single-family residential. The land use in Menlo Park is general 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Bay Area to Merc

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.7 Land Use and Planning 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.7-7

commercial and varying types of residential uses, from medium density apartment to single family 

suburban. Land uses along the alignment alternative in Palo Alto are primarily single-family 

residential on the east and commercial/services on the west where the station is located. Palo Alto 

High School is adjacent to the rail line just south of the Palo Alto Station, beyond which is Stanford 

University. The City of Mountain View has various land uses adjacent to the rail line, including 

general industrial, residential, public facility, limited industrial, and arterial commercial. Rengstorff 

Park is located adjacent to the railroad right-of-way. The northern section of the corridor within the 

City of Sunnyvale is primarily industrial, high-density residential, general business, and neighborhood 

shopping, with industrial with low- to medium-density residential uses interspersed to the north. 

Through the City of Santa Clara, the adjacent uses consist of mixed use, moderate-density 

residential, office/research and development, and medium density residential. 

Population Characteristics 

The San Francisco to San Jose corridor crosses three counties: San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa 

Clara. Population in this area grew from 2.9 million people in 1990 to 3.2 million in 2000, an increase 

of 10%. By 2030, the area population is expected to reach 4.0 million, an increase of 28% over 2000 

levels. Santa Clara County is expected to have the highest expected growth in this area, with 35% 

over the same time period. 

According to U.S. Census 2000 data, minority persons accounted for the following percentages of the 

total population in the counties in the area (lowest to highest): San Mateo, 50%; Santa Clara, 56%; 

and San Francisco, 56%. Approximately 52% of the population along the San Francisco to San Jose 

corridor is part of an ethnic minority group. 

Income 

According to U.S. Census 2000, the percentages per county of households identified as below federal 

poverty level (as defined by the Department of Health and Human Services) along the San Francisco 

to San Jose corridor are (lowest to highest) San Mateo, 5%; Santa Clara, 6%; and San Francisco, 

10%. The study area for the San Francisco to San Jose corridor has a low-income population of 

approximately 7%. 

Neighborhood and Community Characteristics 

San Francisco to Dumbarton: The San Francisco to Dumbarton alignment alternative begins in 

downtown San Francisco and continues within the existing Caltrain right-of-way to Redwood City. In 

San Francisco, the alignment alternative passes through the Potrero, Bay View, and Bayshore districts 

and south into a single-family residential neighborhood in Brisbane. As it continues into south San 

Francisco, it passes through less dense residential neighborhoods in Tanforan and Lomita Park and 

along the eastern edge of Millbrae. Multifamily and single-family neighborhoods are denser where 

the corridor passes through Burlingame and the Hayward Park section of San Mateo. The corridor 

continues through the cities of Belmont and San Carlos, south into Redwood City. 

Dumbarton to San Jose: The Dumbarton to San Jose alignment alternative begins in Atherton and 

continues to San Jose within the existing Caltrain right-of-way. The alignment alternative passes 

through the suburban communities of Atherton and Menlo Park until reaching Palo Alto and Stanford 

University. The alignment alternative then passes southeast through the City of Mountain View, the 

City of Sunnyvale, and the suburban neighborhoods of Lawrence and Santa Clara and the Downtown 

and Willow Glen neighborhoods of the City of San Jose. It terminates in the dense City of San Jose. 

Oakland to San Jose Corridor

This corridor extends from the areas on the east side of the San Francisco Bay along I-880 from the 

City of Oakland to the City of San Jose. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.7 Land Use and Planning 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.7-8

Existing Land Use 

West Oakland to Niles Junction: The West Oakland to Niles Junction alignment alternative begins 

just north of the West Oakland BART Station near a residential area with adjacent commercial uses. 

Land use to the southeast and southwest is primarily transportation related, including the UPRR yard 

and the Joint Intermodal Rail Terminal. 

Between 18th and 66th Avenues, the predominant uses are industrial and commercial complexes on 

both sides of the UPRR tracks. Land uses west of the Coliseum Station are predominately 

commercial and service oriented, including the McAfee Coliseum and ORACLE Arena. Industrial and 

commercial complexes and residential uses are located to the east. Land uses are initially residential 

and then primarily industrial between the Oakland Airport/Coliseum BART Station and 98th Avenue. 

Adjacent land uses in the cities of San Lorenzo and Hayward are primarily single-family residential 

with some commercial/service oriented uses. Existing land uses in the vicinity of the Union City BART 

Station include residential to the east and industrial and commercial complexes to the west. 

12th Street/City Center to Niles Junction: Within the 12th Street/City Center to Niles Junction 

alignment alternative, land uses in the vicinity of the 12th Street/City Center station location option 

are primarily related to the Downtown Civic Center and other commercial and service oriented uses. 

The alignment alternative would proceed in a tunnel under 12th Street from Downtown Oakland past 

Lake Merritt to 18th Avenue. 

South of 18th Avenue in Oakland, the 12th Street/City Center to Niles Junction alignment alternative 

follows the same alignment as the West Oakland to Niles Junction alignment alternative.

Niles Junction to San Jose via Trimble: The Niles Junction to San Jose via Trimble alignment 

alternative begins at Niles Junction in Fremont and continues south to the east of Fremont Central 

Park and Lake Elizabeth, commercial and service oriented uses, and the Alameda Flood Control 

Channel. Near Washington Boulevard, single-family residential uses are predominant on the west 

and mixed urban uses on the east. Adjacent land uses are almost exclusively industrial on both sides 

of the UPRR tracks between Mission Boulevard and Auto Mall Parkway with some commercial 

complexes in Fremont. Between SR 237 and the Alameda County Line, residential and industrial uses 

are located to the east including the Elmwood Rehabilitation Center and County Jail Farm. Industrial 

and commercial complexes including service uses are located to the west. 

Along Trimble Road, between I-880 and Highway 101, industrial land uses are predominant. South 

of Highway 101, north of the existing Caltrain alignment, land uses are industrial to the west, and the 

Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport is to the east. This alignment alternative would 

continue to the San Jose (Diridon) station location option through commercial and industrial land 

uses. 

Niles Junction to San Jose via I-880: Between Niles Junction and Trimble Road, the Niles Junction to 

San Jose via I-880 alignment alternative would be the same as the Niles Junction to San Jose via 

Trimble alignment alternative. South of Trimble Road, residential areas are located in the northeast 

and southeast quadrants of the I-880/Montague Expressway interchange. Between Highway 101 and 

the Montague Expressway, adjacent land uses are primarily industrial and commercial complexes. 

This alignment alternative would continue to the San Jose (Diridon) station location option through 

commercial and industrial land uses. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.7 Land Use and Planning 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.7-9

Population Characteristics 

The Oakland to San Jose corridor includes Alameda and Santa Clara counties. Population for this 

area grew from 2.8 million people in 1990 to 3.1 million in 2000, an increase of nearly 13%, and is 

expected to reach 4.2 million by 2030, increasing by 33% over 2000 levels. Over the same time 

period, population in Santa Clara County is expected to grow by over 35%, the highest growth in this 

region. 

Minority persons in this corridor account for 59% of the population in Alameda County and 56% in 

Santa Clara County, according to 2000 U.S. Census data. The study area for this corridor has an 

ethnic minority population of 73%. 

Income 

According to 2000 U.S. Census data, nearly 10% of Alameda County households and 6% of 

households in Santa Clara County were below the poverty threshold (as defined by the Department 

of Health and Human Services) in 1999. According to U.S. Census 2000, low-income households 

within the Oakland to San Jose corridor study area represent nearly 14%. 

Neighborhood and Community Characteristics 

West Oakland to Niles Junction: This alignment alternative begins in the City of Oakland and travels 

its entire length along either existing rail or roadway right-of-way or via tunnel. The West Oakland to 

Niles Junction alignment alternative travels south through single-family residential neighborhoods in 

west Oakland, San Leandro, San Lorenzo, and west of Ashland, continuing through the multifamily 

residential neighborhoods of Cherryland and Hayward. The alignment continues through the 

residential neighborhoods of Union City, Pabrico, and Eberly. 

12th Street/City Center to Niles Junction: The 12th Street/City Center to Niles Junction alignment 

alternative would be the same as the West Oakland to Niles Junction alignment alternative except 

that the alignment alternative would begin in Downtown Oakland.

Niles Junction to San Jose via Trimble: Within the Niles Junction to San Jose via Trimble alignment 

alternative, neighborhoods become denser as it enters Fremont and travels next to Lake Elizabeth. 

Just north of Milpitas, the alignment alternative traverses the Warm Springs District, through the City 

of Milpitas to its terminus in San Jose via Trimble Road. 

Niles Junction to San Jose via I-880: The Niles Junction to San Jose via I-880 alignment alternative 

would be the same as the Niles Junction to San Jose via Trimble alignment alternative except that 

south of Trimble Road, the alignment alternative would travel through single-family neighborhoods in 

San Jose. 

San Jose to Central Valley

This corridor includes the areas from the City of San Jose south to the City of Gilroy and east across 

the Diablo Range to the Central Valley. Three alignments are in this corridor: Pacheco, Henry Miller 

(UPRR), Henry Miller (BNSF), and GEA North. 

Existing Land Use 

Pacheco: The Pacheco alignment alternative begins at the Diridon Station in San Jose following an 

existing rail corridor past commercial, transportation, and single-family and multifamily residential 

uses. The alignment alternative continues through commercial, light industrial, and single-family 

residential uses as it parallels SR 87. The land uses become more industrial as the alignment 

alternative crosses the Almaden Expressway and Curtner Avenue. South of Coyote, rangeland and 

agricultural uses prevail with scattered single-family residential uses. The City of Gilroy is denser with 

single-family residential, commercial, and light industrial uses; however, as the alignment crosses 

Highway 101 to the east, land uses become agricultural again. When the alignment crosses over 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.7 Land Use and Planning 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.7-10

Bloomfield Avenue, it no longer follows the existing rail corridor as it proceeds through agricultural 

land and the Diablo Mountain Range, continuing north of Pacheco State Park, Cottonwood Creek 

Wildlife Area, O’Neill Forebay Wildlife Area, and the San Luis Reservoir. 

Henry Miller (UPRR Connection): The Henry Miller (UPRR Connection) alignment alternative would be 

the same as the Henry Miller (BNSF Connection) alignment alternative except that the UPRR 

connections would be west of Chowchilla and would only run through agricultural land. 

Henry Miller (BNSF Connection): The Henry Miller (BNSF Connection) alignment alternative parallels 

Henry Miller Avenue beginning near the O’Neill Forebay Wildlife Area in Santa Nella just east of I-5. 

The alignment alternative is in a predominantly agricultural area and runs south of the Volta Wildlife 

Area. After crossing SR 165, the alignment crosses the southern tip of the Los Banos Wildlife Area 

before continuing across the San Joaquin Fresno River and SR 59 parallel to Jefferson Road/Avenue 

24. The alignment alternative runs just south of Chowchilla where the agricultural uses become 

denser. The Henry Miller (BNSF) alignment alternative continues southeast from Chowchilla north of 

the Valley State Prison for Women until it merges with Santa Fe Drive. The Henry Miller (BNSF) 

alignment alternative continues northeast from Chowchilla, further north of the Valley State Prison for 

Women where it also merges with Santa Fe Drive northeast of the Brenda Reservoir. 

GEA North: The GEA North alignment alternative begins at the San Luis Reservoir near Cottonwood 

Creek and continues through agricultural land, crossing I-5 north of Gustine. The alignment 

alternative continues through the northern portion of the San Luis National Wildlife Refuge and 

through agricultural land between Atwater and Merced. The GEA Atwater Wye South to Merced UP 

segment crosses SR 99 and runs east of Atwater, crossing agricultural land uses. The GEA Atwater 

Wye North to BNSF segment crosses SR 99 further north of the GEA Atwater Wye South to Merced 

UP segment west of Atwater through agricultural uses. The GEA Atwater Wye North to BNSF 

segment also merges with Santa Fe Drive. 

The primary land use in proximity to the San Jose/Diridon station location option is industrial. Other 

nearby land uses within the City of San Jose include combined industrial/commercial, public park, 

medium-low density and medium-density residential, light industrial, private recreation, agriculture, 

and campus industrial. The HP Pavilion at San Jose is located adjacent to the Caltrain alignment just 

north of the San Jose/Diridon station location option. 

Population Characteristics 

The San Jose to Central Valley corridor includes four counties: Santa Clara, San Benito, Merced, and 

Madera. Between 1990 and 2000, this area’s population increased by 15% from 1.8 million people to 

2.1 million. Population in these counties is expected to grow approximately 44% by 2030, reaching 

over 3.0 million people. Madera and Merced Counties are expected to have the greatest population 

increases with an expected growth of 79 and 93%, respectively. 

According to the 2000 U.S. Census, minority persons accounted for the following percentages of total 

population in the counties in the area (lowest to highest): Merced, 56%; Santa Clara, 59%; Madera, 

62%; and San Benito, 65%. The ethnic minority population in this area for the San Jose to Central 

Valley corridor is 61%. The Pacheco and GEA North alignment alternatives have similar ethnic 

minority populations. The Henry Miller alignment alternatives have a minority population of 73%. 

Income 

According to 2000 U.S. Census data, the percentages per county of households identified as below 

federal poverty level (as defined by the Department of Health and Human Services) for this corridor 

are (lowest to highest): Santa Clara, 6%; San Benito, 8%; Madera, 16%; and Merced, 18%. Lowincome households within this corridor represent approximately 11%, according to U.S. Census 2000. 

The Henry Miller alignment alternatives and the GEA North alignment alternative have the highest 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.7 Land Use and Planning 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.7-11

percentage of low-income households with 17 and 16%, respectively. The Pacheco alignment 

alternative has a low-income percentage of approximately 8%. 

Neighborhood and Community Characteristics 

Pacheco: The Pacheco alignment alternative begins at the Diridon Station in San Jose following an 

existing rail corridor through dense residential areas in central and southern San Jose. It proceeds 

along the existing rail corridor through Coyote, a small community consisting of single-family 

residences and some commercial/service and industrial land uses. The alignment alternative 

continues to follow the existing rail corridor through the suburban communities of Morgan Hill and 

Gilroy and the agricultural community of Old Gilroy. West of the small agricultural town of San 

Felipe, the alignment alternative departs from the existing rail corridor and passes through the 

northern portion of San Felipe. The alignment then traverses the Diablo Mountain Range, and meets 

the GEA North and Henry Miller alignment alternative just west of Santa Nella Village. 

Henry Miller (UPRR Connection): The Henry Miller (UPRR Connection) alignment alternative would be 

the same as the Henry Miller (BNSF Connection) alignment alternative except that the connections 

with the UPRR are east of Chowchilla. 

Henry Miller (BNSF Connection): The Henry Miller (BNSF Connection) alignment alternative begins 

just east of the community of Santa Nella. This alignment alternative is adjacent to an existing 

transportation right-of-way and passes through agricultural communities northwest of Los Banos and 

through southern Chowchilla. 

GEA North: The GEA North alignment alternative begins just east of Santa Nella and continues 

northeast until passing just north of Gustine. Northwest of Gustine, the alignment alternative crosses 

one farm but does not traverse the community itself. After crossing miles of agricultural land, this 

alignment alternative reaches the town of Atwater. Although this alignment alternative follows 

existing roadways, it passes through agricultural uses in the southwestern portion of Atwater (GEA 

North XS). The GEA North XN alignment alternative travels through agricultural uses in central 

Atwater. 

East Bay to Central Valley Corridor

This corridor includes the areas from the City of Fremont east through Niles Canyon and into the 

cities of Pleasanton, Dublin, and Livermore. East of the City of Livermore, the alignment alternatives 

in this corridor continue through the Altamont Pass and into the Central Valley via the cities of Tracy 

and Manteca. 

Existing Land Use 

There are eight alignment alternatives within the East Bay to Central Valley Corridor: I680/580/UPRR, I-580/UPRR, Patterson Pass/UPRR, UPRR, Tracy Downtown (BNSF and UPRR 

Connections), Tracy ACE Station (BNSF and UPRR Connections). 

I-680/580/UPRR: The I-680/580/UPRR alignment alternative splits from the existing UPRR alignment 

in south Pleasanton as it exits the Diablo Mountain Range. As the alignment alternative exits the 

tunnel, it crosses through the Castlewood Country Club and merges with I-680, where it continues 

north through single-family residential areas. As I-680 meets I-580, the alignment alternative 

continues along eastbound I-580 through Dublin. This area is predominantly commercial and 

industrial with scattered vacant land and single-family residential uses. East of Tassajara Road, land 

uses are generally vacant or recreational, with some industrial and transportation uses. As the 

alignment alternative continues east into Livermore, single-family residential uses are predominant 

with some vacant land on the northern side. As the alignment alternative approaches North Vasco 

Road, industrial buildings are the dominant land use with single-family residences on the north side 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.7 Land Use and Planning 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.7-12

of the alignment. The alignment alternative passes through the Altamont Pass via cut and tunnel, 

where it merges with the existing UPRR alignment before exiting on the eastern side. 

I-580/UPRR: The I-580/UPRR alignment alternative continues from the Dumbarton alignment 

alternative at its intersection with the Niles/I-880 alignment alternative. The alignment alternative 

continues northwest from the Dumbarton alignment alternative, via cut and tunnel, through the 

Diablo Mountain Range. West of I-680, the alignment alternative connects with the existing UPRR 

and continues east through industrial and residential land uses. East of Pleasanton, the alignment 

alternative splits from the existing UPRR alignment and continues north to I-580, east of Tassajara 

Road, passing through mostly vacant land with some industrial uses. Continuing east along I-580, 

land uses are generally vacant or recreational, with some industrial, residential, and transportation 

uses. East of Livermore, the alignment alternative passes through the Altamont Pass via cut and 

tunnel, where it merges with the existing UPRR alignment before exiting on the eastern side to the 

county line. 

Patterson Pass/UPRR: The Patterson Pass/UPRR alignment alternative continues from the Dumbarton 

alignment alternative at its intersection with the Niles/I-880 alignment alternative. The alignment 

alternative continues northwest from the Dumbarton alignment alternative, via cut and tunnel, 

through the Diablo Mountain Range. As it exits the tunnel and traverses west of I-680, the alignment 

alternative connects with the existing UPRR right-of-way and continues east through industrial and 

residential land uses in Pleasanton and Livermore. The alignment alternative departs from the 

existing UPRR alignment in east Livermore where it is flanked by both light industrial and singlefamily residential uses. The alignment alternative proceeds via a cut through the Altamont Pass 

where it merges with the UPRR alignment on the eastern side. 

UPRR: The UPRR alignment alternative continues from the Dumbarton alignment alternative at its 

intersection with the Niles/I-880 alignment alternative. The alignment alternative continues 

northwest from the Dumbarton alignment alternative, via cut and tunnel, through the Diablo 

Mountain Range. As it exits the tunnel and traverses west of I-680, the alignment alternative 

connects with the existing UPRR alignment and continues east through industrial and residential land 

uses in Pleasanton and Livermore. East of Livermore, the alignment alternative passes through the 

Altamont Pass via cut and tunnel, where it merges with the existing UPRR alignment before exiting 

on the eastern side into open space land uses to the county line. 

Tracy Downtown (BNSF Connection): The Tracy Downtown (BNSF Connection) alignment alternative 

begins at the western San Joaquin county border, continuing from the I-580/UPRR and UPRR 

alignment alternatives. The alignment alternative crosses I-580, the Edward G. Brown Aqueduct, and 

the Delta Mendota Canal, continuing east through the City of Tracy past single-family residences and 

scattered community parks. On the eastern edge of Tracy, land uses become agricultural and rural 

residential. After the alignment alternative crosses I-205, it continues through agricultural land west 

of Escalon. 

Tracy ACE Station (BNSF Connection): The Tracy ACE Station (BNSF Connection) alignment 

alternative begins at the western San Joaquin county border, continuing from the I-580/UPRR and 

UPRR alignment alternatives. After crossing I-580, the alignment alternative continues just south of 

Tracy Municipal Airport and continues north through vacant, agricultural, and single-family land uses. 

At Ahern Road, land uses become predominantly agricultural with some open space and recreational 

uses east of I-5. As the alignment alternative continues through the City of Manteca, single-family 

residences with scattered community parks dominate the landscape. Once the alignment alternative 

crosses SR 120, it would continue through agricultural land west of Escalon. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.7 Land Use and Planning 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.7-13

Tracy ACE Station (UPRR Connection): The Tracy ACE Station (UPRR Connection) alignment 

alternative would be the same as the Tracy ACE Station (BNSF Connection) except that the alignment 

alternative would continue through agricultural land uses south of Manteca. 

Tracy Downtown (UPRR Connection): The Tracy Downtown (UPRR Connection) alignment alternative 

would be the same as the Tracy Downtown (BNSF Connection) except that the alignment alternative 

would continue through agricultural land uses south of Manteca. 

Population Characteristics 

The East Bay to Central Valley corridor includes Alameda and Stanislaus counties. Population in this 

area grew from 1.6 million people in 1990 to 1.9 million in 2000, an increase of nearly 15%. By 

2030, population in the corridor is expected to grow 39% from 2000, reaching 2.6 million people. 

Stanislaus County is expecting the highest percentage of growth during the same period with an 

increase of nearly 65%. 

Minority persons in this area accounted for 56% of the population in Alameda County and 69% of the 

population in Stanislaus County, according to 2000 U.S. Census data. Ethnic minority persons 

accounted for the following percentages of the total population for each of the alignment segments 

(lowest to highest): Patterson Pass/UPRR, 23%; I-680/580/UPRR, 30%; Pleasanton, 30%; UPRR, 

35%; and I-580/UPRR, 41%. 

Income 

According to 2000 U.S. Census data, nearly 10% of Alameda County households and 14% of 

households in Stanislaus County were below the poverty threshold in 1999 as defined by the 

Department of Health and Human Services. 

Neighborhoods and Communities 

I-680/580/UPRR: The I-680/580/UPRR alignment alternative splits from the existing UPRR alignment 

in south Pleasanton as it exits the Diablo Mountain Range, crossing through the Castlewood Country 

Club and merging with I-680. As it parallels I-680 along the western edge of Pleasanton, it continues 

north through a single-family residential area. At the interchange of I-680 and I-580, the alignment 

alternative continues on eastbound I-580 through Dublin. This area is predominantly commercial and 

industrial interspersed with single-family residential uses. Single-family residential neighborhoods are 

predominant along the southern side of the alignment alternative as it continues east into the City of 

Livermore. 

I-580/UPRR: West of I-680, south of Pleasanton, the I-580/UPRR alignment alternative connects 

with existing UPRR right-of-way and continues through single-family neighborhoods. The alignment 

alternative splits from the existing UPRR right-of-way east of Pleasanton and continues north through 

unincorporated Alameda County to connect with I-580. Along I-580 and traversing east, singlefamily residential neighborhoods are predominant along the southern side of the alignment 

alternative as it continues east into the City of Livermore. Beyond Livermore, the alignment 

alternative does not pass through any communities or neighborhoods. 

Patterson Pass/UPRR: The Patterson Pass/UPRR alignment alternative begins in east Livermore where 

it follows existing UPRR right-of-way before splitting from the existing UPRR alignment in 

unincorporated Alameda County. This alignment alternative does not pass through any communities 

or neighborhoods. 

UPRR: As the UPRR alignment alternative exits the tunnel through the Diablo Mountain Range, it 

continues east through Pleasanton and Livermore on existing rail right-of-way through various 

neighborhoods. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.7 Land Use and Planning 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.7-14

Tracy Downtown (BNSF Connection): The Tracy Downtown (BNSF Connection) alignment alternative 

exits the Altamont Pass south of Tracy Municipal Airport, reconnecting with existing UPRR right-ofway along the edge of a single-family residential neighborhood. In southern Manteca, the Tracy 

Downtown (BNSF Connection) alignment alternative continues along SR 120 through a residential 

community. 

Tracy ACE Station (BNSF Connection): The Tracy ACE Station (BNSF Connection) alignment 

alternative comes into San Joaquin County and continues into Tracy north of Tracy Municipal Airport 

along existing freight and commuter rail right-of-way. Near the airport, the alignment alternative 

passes through a single-family neighborhood to the north. In southern Manteca, the Tracy ACE 

Station (BNSF Connection) alignment alternative continues along SR 120 through a residential 

community. 

Tracy ACE Station (UPRR Connection): The Tracy ACE Station (UPRR Connection) alignment 

alternative would be the same as the Tracy ACE Station (BNSF Connection) alignment alternative 

except that it would not pass through any communities or neighborhoods. 

Tracy Downtown (UPRR Connection): The Tracy Downtown (UPRR Connection) alignment alternative 

would be the same as the Tracy Downtown (BNSF Connection) alignment alternative except that it 

does not pass through any communities or neighborhoods. 

San Francisco Bay Crossings

These crossing alignment alternatives include the San Francisco Bay crossings between the cities of 

San Francisco and Oakland near the San Francisco/Oakland Bay Bridge and between the cities of East 

Palo Alto and Newark south of the Dumbarton Bridge and into the City of Fremont. 

Existing Land Use 

There are three alignment alternatives that make up the San Francisco Bay Crossings corridor: 

Transbay, Dumbarton, and Fremont Central Park. 

Trans Bay Crossing – Transbay Transit Center: The Trans Bay Crossing – Transbay Transit Center 

alignment begins at 7th and Townsend Street in San Francisco where it passes through industrial, 

commercial, and recreational land uses and crosses the San Francisco Bay in a tunnel. On the 

eastern side of the bay, the alignment alternative continues to the City of Alameda and through 

Oakland Inner Harbor and east across I-880 where it merges with the Oakland to San Jose alignment 

alternative. 

Trans Bay Crossing – 4th & King: The existing land uses are the same for the Trans Bay Crossing – 4th

& King alignment alternative as for the Trans Bay Crossing – Transit Center alignment alternative. 

Dumbarton (High Bridge): The Dumbarton (High Bridge) alignment alternative begins just south of 

Redwood City near Middlefield Road. Land uses in this area are predominantly single-family and 

multifamily residential, with a mixture of commercial and industrial uses. Industrial uses are 

generally located adjacent to San Francisco Bay and on the east side of Highway 101, but are most 

predominant on both sides of the Dumbarton Bridge. The Dumbarton alignment alternative would 

follow the existing Dumbarton Rail Bridge corridor to the east side of the bay where it crosses over 

Newark Slough. Proceeding south, the alignment alternative crosses through salt ponds in Newark 

and continues east crossing ACE/Amtrak in a highly industrial area. The alignment alternative 

crosses I-880 near single-family residences and institutional uses. The alignment alternative then 

proceeds via tunnel through the Diablo Mountain Range and merges with the existing UPRR 

alignment. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.7 Land Use and Planning 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.7-15

Dumbarton (Low Bridge): Existing land uses along the Dumbarton (Low Bridge) alignment 

alternative are the same as the Dumbarton (High Bridge) alignment alternative. 

Dumbarton (Tube): Existing land uses along the Dumbarton (Tube) alignment alternative are the 

same as the Dumbarton (High Bridge) alignment alternative except that the alignment alternative 

would cross under the Bay in a tube. 

Fremont Central Park (High Bridge): The Fremont Central Park (High Bridge) alignment alternative 

splits from the Dumbarton alignment alternative just west of Newark. The alignment alternative 

crosses I-880 south of Stevenson Boulevard before intersecting single-family residential 

neighborhoods and Blacow Park. East of Blacow Park, the alignment alternative proceeds to the east 

of Fremont Central Park. The alignment alternative connects with the existing UPRR alignment west 

of the Diablo Mountain Range. 

Fremont Central Park (Low Bridge): Existing land uses along the Fremont Central Park (Low Bridge) 

alignment alternative are the same as the Fremont Central Park (High Bridge) alignment alternative. 

Fremont Central Park (Tube): Existing land uses along the Fremont Central Park (Tube) alignment 

alternative are the same as the Fremont Central Park (High Bridge) alignment alternative except that 

the alignment alternative would cross under the Bay in a tube. 

Population Characteristics 

The San Francisco Bay Crossing alignment alternatives include San Francisco, San Mateo, and 

Alameda counties. Between 1990 and 2000, this area’s population increased by over 10% from 2.7 

million to over 2.9 million. In this area from 2000 to 2030, the population is expected to grow to 3.7 

million people, an increase of 25%. Alameda County expects the most growth during the same time 

period, with an estimated growth of 31%. 

According to 2000 U.S. Census data, minority persons accounted for the following percentages of 

total population in the counties for the bay crossings (lowest to highest): San Mateo, 41%; San 

Francisco, 50%; and Alameda County, 51%. Ethnic minority populations within the areas along the 

San Francisco Bay Crossing alignment alternatives accounted for the following percentages of total 

population within the alignment alternatives (lowest to highest): Fremont Central Park, 58%; Trans 

Bay Crossing, 64%; and Dumbarton, 69%. 

Income 

According to 2000 U.S. Census data, nearly 10% of the households in Alameda and San Francisco 

counties were below the poverty threshold in 1999 as defined by the Department of Health and 

Human Services. San Mateo County households below the poverty threshold accounted for nearly 

5% of the population. 

Neighborhoods and Communities 

Trans Bay Crossing – Transbay Transit Center: The Trans Bay Crossing – Transbay Transit Center 

alignment alternative begins in San Francisco on existing right-of-way and terminates in Oakland. No 

neighborhoods or communities are traversed. 

Trans Bay Crossing – 4th & King: The Trans Bay Crossing – 4th & King alignment alternative begins in 

San Francisco on existing right-of-way and terminates in Oakland. No neighborhoods or communities 

are traversed.

Dumbarton (High Bridge): The Dumbarton (High Bridge) alignment alternative begins just south of 

Redwood City on existing right-of-way, passing through single-family and multifamily residential 

neighborhoods interspersed with commercial and industrial uses. After crossing San Francisco Bay 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.7 Land Use and Planning 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.7-16

south of the Dumbarton Bridge, it passes through single-family and multifamily residential 

neighborhoods in the cities of Newark and Fremont. 

Dumbarton (Low Bridge): The Dumbarton (Low Bridge) alignment alternative would pass through 

the same neighborhoods and communities as the Dumbarton (High Bridge) alignment alternative. 

Dumbarton (Tube): The Dumbarton (Tube) alignment alternative would pass through the same 

neighborhoods and communities as the Dumbarton (High Bridge) alignment alternative. 

Fremont Central Park (High Bridge): The Fremont Central Park alignment alternative splits from the 

Dumbarton alignment alternative just west of Newark. The alignment alternative intersects some 

single-family residential neighborhoods in Newark. Portions of this alignment alternative, east of I880, are not located on existing transportation right-of-way. 

Fremont Central Park (Low Bridge): The Fremont Central Park (Low Bridge) alignment alternative 

would pass through the same neighborhoods and communities as the Fremont Central Park (High 

Bridge) alignment alternative. 

Fremont Central Park (Tube): The Fremont Central Park (Tube) alignment alternative would pass 

through the same neighborhoods and communities as the Fremont Central Park (High Bridge) 

alignment alternative. 

Central Valley Corridor

The Central Valley corridor includes the areas of the Central Valley from the City of Stockton south to 

the northern areas of Madera County. Two alignment alternatives within the Central Valley corridor 

traverse along the existing UPRR and BNSF rail lines. 

Existing Land Use 

The Central Valley corridor includes the areas of the Central Valley generally along the existing UPRR 

and BNSF rail lines from the City of Stockton south to the northern areas of Madera County. 

BNSF – UPRR: Between the Cities of Stockton and Modesto, the BNSF – UPRR alignment alternative 

passes through agricultural lands with scattered residences. Leaving Stockton in a southeasterly 

direction, the alignment alternative passes farmlands until it enters the City of Escalon. The BNSF – 

UPRR alignment alternative runs along Main Street through the center of Escalon, traversing 

residential and commercial areas. This alignment alternative continues southeast along the existing 

rail line past large agricultural parcels with scattered residences until it crosses the San Joaquin 

County/Stanislaus County line at the Stanislaus River. The community of Riverbank at the Stanislaus 

River is the only residential area before the Modesto Briggsmore Station. 

The BNSF – UPRR alignment alternative would follow the existing BNSF rail corridor through 

predominantly agricultural lands south of Modesto. Within Stanislaus County, long stretches of 

farmlands are occasionally broken by the small rural communities of Empire, Hughson, and Denair. 

Between Empire and Hughson, the alignment alternative passes the Whitehurst-Lakewood Memorial 

Park Cemetery just south of the Tuolumne River. 

In Atwater, the alignment alternative passes the Castle Air Museum, Bloss Hospital, and Castle Park. 

For a potential station location at Castle AFB, the alignment alternative would bypass the community 

of Winton and Atwater through farmlands east of Winton and would then pass through developed 

residential area between Castle AFB and Atwater. Land uses in this area include the California Army 

National Guard, former military buildings, and the Atwater Sports Club. South of Castle AFB, the 

BNSF – UPRR alignment alternative diverges from the BNSF alignment, cutting through agricultural 

lands to join the existing UPRR rail right-of-way northwest of the City of Merced. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.7 Land Use and Planning 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.7-17

Within Merced County, the BNSF – UPRR alignment alternative traverses a number of communities, 

including Delhi, Livingston, and Atwater. Beyond Atwater, land use density increases as it 

approaches the City of Merced. Agricultural land uses are predominant between the Cities of Merced 

and Chowchilla. Upon entering Chowchilla, land use becomes light industrial. 

BNSF: The BNSF alignment alternative would be the same as the BNSF – UPRR alignment alternative 

except that south of Merced, the alignment alternative would continue along the existing BNSF rail 

corridor through agricultural land uses before entering Chowchilla, where land use becomes light 

industrial. 

UPRR N/S: Between the Cities of Stockton and Modesto, the UPRR N/S alignment alternative passes 

through several developed communities. South of Stockton, the alignment alternative passes 

through the communities of French Camp, Lathrop, Manteca, and Ripon, before entering Stanislaus 

County. While much of this portion is agricultural, there are large residential tracts and smaller 

commercial areas along the alignment in Manteca and Ripon. South of the county line at the 

Stanislaus River, the UPRR N/S alignment alternative passes the community of Salida before 

immediately entering Modesto. The alignment alternative continues through the central portion of 

Modesto, passing Modesto Junior College West, Modesto Junior College East, the Modesto 

Convention Center, Tuolumne Regional River Park, and the community of Ceres immediately south of 

the Tuolumne River. 

South of the Modesto (Downtown) station location option, the land uses surrounding the alignment 

alternative consist of a mix of residential, commercial, and industrial development. Development 

becomes increasingly sparse as the alignment alternative continues south through rural residential 

and agricultural development. The UPRR N/S alignment alternative bisects the City of Ceres, passing 

the Stanislaus County Fairgrounds and the downtown area including Central Park and the Chamber of 

Commerce. 

Within Merced County, the UPRR N/S alignment alternative traverses a number of communities, 

including Delhi, Livingston, and Atwater. Beyond Atwater, land use density increases as it 

approaches the City of Merced. Agricultural land uses are predominant between the cities of Merced 

and Chowchilla. Upon entering Chowchilla, land use becomes light industrial. 

BNSF Castle: The BNSF Castle alignment alternative would be the same as the BNSF – UPRR 

alignment alternative except that the alignment alternative would continue just west of Castle AFB 

through mostly agricultural land before continuing along the existing BNSF right-of-way through 

mostly agricultural land uses before entering Madera. 

UPRR – BNSF Castle: The UPRR – BNSF Castle alignment alternative would be the same as the UPRR 

N/S alignment alternative through Turlock and the same as the BNSF Castle alignment alternative 

north of Winton with the exception of the connection between the UPPR and BNSF alignments just 

south of the Merced County line; the alignment alternative would continue through agricultural land 

uses. 

UPRR – BNSF: The UPRR – BNSF alignment alternative would be the same as the UPRR N/S 

alignment alternative to the San Joaquin County border, the connection to the BNSF alignment 

alternative north of Winton, and the BNSF alignment alternative south of the connection. 

Population Characteristics 

The Central Valley corridor includes portions of San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Merced counties. 

Population grew from approximately 1.0 million people in 1990 to over 1.2 million people in 2000, an 

increase of 19%. The region’s population is expected to increase by over 1.0 million people between 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.7 Land Use and Planning 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.7-18

2000 and 2030, an increase of over 85%. The largest growth in the region is expected to occur in 

San Joaquin County with an expected growth of nearly 98% over the same time period. 

According to 2000 U.S. Census data, minority persons accounted for the following percentages of 

total population in the counties in this corridor (lowest to highest): Stanislaus, 43%; San Joaquin, 

53%; and Merced, 60%. The Central Valley corridor alignment alternatives have an ethnic minority 

population of 52%. The BNSF and UPRR N/S alignment alternatives have minority populations of 44 

and 56%, respectively. 

Income 

According to 2000 U.S. Census data, the percentages of households identified as below poverty level 

(as defined by the Department of Health and Human Services) for this corridor by county are (lowest 

to highest): Stanislaus, 14%; San Joaquin, 15%; and Merced, 18%. 

According to the 2000 U.S. Census, low-income households within the Central Valley corridor 

represent nearly 17% of the population. The BNSF Castle and UPRR N/S alignment alternatives have 

the greatest low-income households with 22 and 20%, respectively. Low-income households account 

for over 13% within the BNSF alignment alternatives. 

Neighborhoods and Communities 

The Central Valley corridor includes the Central Valley neighborhood and community areas generally 

located along the UPRR and BNSF rail lines from the City of Stockton south to the northern portions 

of Madera County. 

BNSF – UPRR: The BNSF – UPRR alignment alternative is bordered predominantly by agricultural 

lands with scattered residences. Leaving eastern Stockton, the alignment alternative follows existing 

BNSF right-of-way through the rural communities of Burnham, Avena, Escalon, Huntley, and 

Riverbank. The alignment alternative continues southeast and passes through the small community 

of Claus, Modesto, and the residential neighborhoods of Empire, Hughson, Denair, Cortez, Ballico, 

and Cressey. Residential neighborhoods become denser as the alignment alternative traverses the 

communities of Winton and The Grove. As the alignment alternative continues south, it passes 

through the suburban community of Castle Gardens and the urban neighborhoods of Merced and 

through the agricultural communities of Lingard and Athlone. The alignment alternative passes 

through the small rural community of Minturn and continues south through rural Fairmead before 

passing through eastern Chowchilla. 

BNSF: The BNSF alignment alternative would affect the same neighborhoods as the same as the 

BNSF – UPRR alignment alternative except that south of Merced, the alignment alternative would 

continue along the existing BNSF rail corridor southeast of Merced through the rural communities of 

Plainsburg and Le Grand. 

UPRR N/S: The UPRR N/S alignment alternative begins in the City of Stockton and continues on 

existing UPRR right-of-way through several residential neighborhoods including Mormon, The 

Homestead, and El Pinal. The alignment alternative then continues through the unincorporated 

communities of French Camp, Lathrop, and Manteca and passes through several residential 

neighborhoods. The alignment alternative continues through the unincorporated community of Ripon 

along SR 99 and adjacent residential neighborhoods. It continues along existing right-of-way 

through residential neighborhoods in the town of Salida, Modesto, and Ceres before continuing 

through Keyes, Central Turlock, Delhi, and Livingston. It continues south through western Atwater 

and Merced and through the agricultural communities of Lingard and Athlone. The alignment 

alternative passes through the small rural community of Minturn and continues south through rural 

Fairmead before passing through eastern Chowchilla. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.7 Land Use and Planning 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.7-19

BNSF Castle: The BNSF Castle alignment alternative would be the same as the BNSF – UPRR 

alignment except that the alignment would continue just west of Castle AFB before continuing along 

the existing BNSF rail right-of-way passing through Planada before continuing on to Madera. 

UPRR – BNSF Castle: The UPRR – BNSF Castle alignment alternative would affect the same 

neighborhoods as the UPRR N/S alignment alternative through Turlock and the BNSF Castle 

alignment alternative north of Winton with the exception of the connection between the UPRR and 

BNSF corridors just south of the Merced County line where the alignment alternative would not pass 

through any additional neighborhoods. 

UPRR – BNSF: The UPRR – BNSF alignment alternative would affect the same neighborhoods as the 

UPRR N/S alignment alternative in San Joaquin County, the connection to the BNSF alignment 

alternative north of Winton, and the BNSF alignment alternative south of the connection. 

3.7.3 Environmental Consequences 

A. NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE 

Land use and local communities will change between 2006 and 2030 as a result of population growth 

and changes of economic activity in the study areas for the six corridors studied (see Chapter 5, 

“Economic Growth and Related Impacts”). The No Project Alternative is based on existing conditions 

and the funded and programmed transportation improvements that would be developed and in 

operation by 2030. Although it is expected that the No Project Alternative would result in some 

changes related to land use compatibility, communities and neighborhoods, property, and 

environmental justice, it was assumed that projects included in the No Project Alternative would 

include typical design and construction practices to avoid or minimize potential impacts and would be 

subject to a project-level environmental review process to identify potentially significant impacts and 

to include feasible mitigation measures to avoid or substantially reduce potential impacts. Although 

some changes would be likely, attempting to estimate such changes would be speculative. 

Therefore, no additional potential impacts were quantified for the No Project Alternative. 

B. HIGH-SPEED TRAIN ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES 

Table 3.7-3 provides a summary comparison of alignment alternatives for the land use evaluations. A 

review of the land use impacts for each corridor follows the table. 

Table 3.7.3. 

Land Use Summary Data Table for 

Alignment Alternatives and Station Location Option Comparisons 

Corridor 

Possible 

Alignments 

Alignment 

Alternative 

Land Use 

Compatibility 

(H,M,L) 

Community 

Cohesion 

Impacts 

(Y/N) 

Potential For 

Property 

Impacts 

(H,M,L) 

Environmental 

Justice (EJ) 

Impacts (H,M,L) 

San 

Francisco to 

San Jose: 

Caltrain 

1 of 1 San 

Francisco to 

Dumbarton 

H 

Compatible with 

existing Caltrain 

Corridor. 

N L 

Corridor would be 

built mostly within 

existing Caltrain 

Corridor. 

M 

Alignment within 

existing rail right-ofway. Percentages of 

EJ populations in 

study area exceed 

thresholds. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.7 Land Use and Planning 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.7-20

Corridor 

Possible 

Alignments 

Alignment 

Alternative 

Land Use 

Compatibility 

(H,M,L) 

Community 

Cohesion 

Impacts 

(Y/N) 

Potential For 

Property 

Impacts 

(H,M,L) 

Environmental 

Justice (EJ) 

Impacts (H,M,L) 

1 of 1 Dumbarton to 

San Jose 

H 

Compatible with 

existing Caltrain 

Corridor. 

N L 

Corridor would be 

built mostly within 

existing Caltrain 

Corridor. 

M 

Alignment within 

existing rail right-ofway. Percentages of 

EJ populations 

exceed thresholds. 

Station Location Options 

Transbay Transit Center H 

Compatible with 

transportation and 

high-density office 

use.

N L 

Station would be 

located at the 

current Transbay 

Terminal.

L 

Percentages of EJ 

populations are 

lower than the 

thresholds. 

4th and King (Caltrain) H 

Compatible with 

existing Caltrain 

station and 

surrounding uses.

N L 

Station would be 

located at the 

current Caltrain 

station site.

L 

Percentages of EJ 

populations are 

lower than the 

thresholds. 

Millbrae/SFO H 

Compatible with 

existing 

transportation uses 

at the Millbrae 

BART/Caltrain 

Station area.

N L 

Station would be 

located at the 

Millbrae BART/ 

Caltrain Station 

site.

L 

Percentages of EJ 

populations are 

lower than the 

thresholds. 

Redwood City (Caltrain) H 

Compatible with 

existing Caltrain 

station and adjacent 

downtown 

commercial/service 

oriented uses. 

Consistent with 

plans that promote 

transit alternatives 

to the automobile.

N L 

Station would be 

located at the 

current Caltrain 

station site.

L 

Percentages of EJ 

populations are 

lower than the 

thresholds. 

Palo Alto (Caltrain) H 

Compatible with 

Caltrain station, 

multifamily housing, 

and facilities 

associated with 

Stanford University. 

Consistent with 

multi-modal transit 

center.

N L 

Station would be 

located at the 

current Caltrain 

station site.

L 

Percentages of EJ 

populations are 

lower than the 

thresholds. 

Oakland to 

San Jose: 

Niles/I-880 

1 of 2 West 

Oakland to 

Niles 

Junction 

H 

Compatible with 

existing UPRR 

right-of-way. 

N L 

Corridor would be 

built mostly within 

existing UPRR 

right-of-way. 

M 

Alignment within 

existing rail right-ofway. Percentages of 

EJ populations 

exceed thresholds. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.7 Land Use and Planning 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.7-21

Corridor 

Possible 

Alignments 

Alignment 

Alternative 

Land Use 

Compatibility 

(H,M,L) 

Community 

Cohesion 

Impacts 

(Y/N) 

Potential For 

Property 

Impacts 

(H,M,L) 

Environmental 

Justice (EJ) 

Impacts (H,M,L) 

12th

Street/City 

Center to 

Niles 

Junction 

H 

Compatible with 

existing UPRR 

right-of-way. 

N L 

Corridor would be 

built mostly within 

existing UPRR 

right-of-way. 

M 

Alignment within 

existing rail right-ofway. Percentages of 

EJ populations 

exceed thresholds. 

1 of 2 Niles 

Junction to 

San Jose via 

Trimble 

H 

Compatible with 

existing UPRR/I880 right-of-way. 

N L 

Corridor would be 

built mostly within 

existing UPRR 

right-of-way. 

M 

Alignment within 

existing rail right-ofway. Percentages of 

EJ populations 

exceed thresholds. 

Niles 

Junction to 

San Jose via 

I-880 

H 

Compatible with 

existing UPRR/I880 right-of-way. 

N L 

Corridor would be 

built mostly within 

existing UPRR 

right-of-way. 

M 

Alignment within 

existing rail right-ofway. Percentages of 

EJ populations 

exceed thresholds. 

Station Location Options 

West Oakland/7th Street H 

Compatible with 

existing West 

Oakland BART 

Station and transitoriented district. 

Consistent with 

plans for transit 

oriented district. 

N L 

Station would be 

constructed below 

grade at the 

existing West 

Oakland BART 

Station. 

M 

Station constructed 

below grade. 

Percentages of EJ 

populations within 

station area exceed 

thresholds. 

12th Street/City Center H 

Compatible with 

12th Street/City 

Center BART 

Station, civic center, 

and high-intensity 

commercial uses 

associated with 

Downtown Oakland. 

Consistent with 

plans for transit 

oriented district. 

N L 

Station would be 

constructed below 

grade at the 

existing Oakland 

City Center/12th

Street BART 

Station. 

M 

Station constructed 

below grade. 

Percentages of EJ 

populations within 

station area exceed 

thresholds. 

Coliseum/Airport H 

Compatible with 

industrial uses and 

commercial uses 

associated with the 

McAfee Coliseum 

and ORACLE 

Arena. Consistent 

with plans for transit 

oriented district. 

N L 

Station would be 

located south of 

the 

Coliseum/Oakland 

Airport BART 

Station along 

UPRR right-of-way.

M 

Station constructed 

at existing Coliseum/ 

Oakland BART 

Station. 

Percentages of EJ 

populations within 

station area exceed 

thresholds. 

Union City (BART) H 

Compatible with 

Union City BART 

Station and 

industrial and 

N L 

Station would be 

located near the 

current Union City 

BART Station.

M 

Station constructed 

near existing Union 

City BART Station. 

Percentages of EJ 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.7 Land Use and Planning 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.7-22

Corridor 

Possible 

Alignments 

Alignment 

Alternative 

Land Use 

Compatibility 

(H,M,L) 

Community 

Cohesion 

Impacts 

(Y/N) 

Potential For 

Property 

Impacts 

(H,M,L) 

Environmental 

Justice (EJ) 

Impacts (H,M,L) 

commercial uses. 

Consistent with 

plans for 

development of a 

regional intermodal 

facility and research 

and development 

campus. 

populations within 

station area exceed 

thresholds. 

Fremont (Warm Springs) H 

Compatible with 

existing industrial 

and transportation 

uses. Consistent 

with plans for future 

BART station. 

N L 

Potential impacts 

on undeveloped 

properties. 

H 

New station 

constructed outside 

of existing right-ofway. Percentages of 

EJ populations within 

station area exceed 

thresholds. 

San Jose to 

Central 

Valley: 

Pacheco Pass 

1 of 1 Pacheco M 

Highly compatible 

with existing 

Caltrain Corridor 

between San Jose 

and Gilroy. Low 

compatibility with 

agricultural land and 

open space, east of 

Gilroy. 

N L 

Alignment within 

existing Caltrain 

Corridor between 

San Jose and 

Gilroy. East of 

Gilroy, alignment 

within agricultural 

and open space. 

M 

Alignment within 

existing rail right-ofway, north of Gilroy. 

New alignment east 

of Gilroy. Although 

the EJ percentage 

thresholds are 

exceeded east of 

Gilroy, the EJ 

populations are 

sparse and distant 

from the HST line. 

1 of 3 Henry Miller 

(UPRR 

Connection) 

M 

Highly compatible 

with existing Henry 

Miller Road 

between Santa 

Nella and Elgin 

Avenue. New 

alignment right-ofway would be 

incompatible with 

agricultural uses 

east of Elgin 

Avenue. 

N L 

Alignment would be 

built through 

agricultural land. 

Impacts would be 

minimal. 

L 

Alignment alternative 

would create new 

transportation rightof-way. Although the 

EJ percentage 

thresholds are 

exceeded, the 

populations are 

sparse and distant 

from the HST line. 

Henry Miller 

(BNSF 

Connection)

M 

Highly compatible 

with existing Henry 

Miller Road 

between Santa 

Nella and Elgin 

Avenue. New 

alignment right-ofway would be 

incompatible with 

agricultural uses 

east of Elgin 

Avenue. 

N L 

Alignment would be 

built through 

agricultural land. 

Impacts would be 

minimal. 

L 

Alignment alternative 

would create new 

transportation rightof-way. Although the 

EJ percentage 

thresholds are 

exceeded, the 

populations are 

sparse and distant 

from the HST line. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.7 Land Use and Planning 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.7-23

Corridor 

Possible 

Alignments 

Alignment 

Alternative 

Land Use 

Compatibility 

(H,M,L) 

Community 

Cohesion 

Impacts 

(Y/N) 

Potential For 

Property 

Impacts 

(H,M,L) 

Environmental 

Justice (EJ) 

Impacts (H,M,L) 

GEA North L 

Incompatible with 

agricultural uses. 

N L 

Alignment would be 

built through 

agricultural and 

open space. 

Impacts would be 

minimal. 

H 

Alignment alternative 

would create new 

transportation rightof-way. Percentages 

of EJ populations 

exceed thresholds. 

San Jose (Diridon) H 

Compatible with 

San Jose Diridon 

Caltrain station and 

industrial uses. 

Consistent with 

plans for downtown 

redevelopment. 

N L 

Station would be 

located at the 

current Caltrain 

station site.

L 

Percentage of EJ 

populations is lower 

than the thresholds. 

Morgan Hill (Caltrain) H 

Compatible with 

Morgan Hill Caltrain 

station and 

commercial uses. 

Consistent with 

plans for 

development of 

multi-modal transit 

transfer center. 

N L 

Station would be 

located at the 

current Caltrain 

station site.

L 

Percentages of EJ 

populations are lower 

than the thresholds. 

Gilroy (Caltrain) M 

Highly compatible 

with existing Gilroy 

Caltrain station and 

commercial uses. 

Low compatibility 

with single-family 

residential use. 

Consistent with 

policies for 

development of a 

multi-modal transit 

center. 

N L 

Station would be 

located at the 

current Caltrain 

station site.

M 

Station constructed 

at existing Gilroy 

Caltrain Station. 

Percentages of EJ 

populations within 

station area exceed 

thresholds. 

East Bay to 

Central 

Valley: 

Altamont 

Pass

1 of 4 I-680/ 

580/UPRR 

H 

Compatible with 

existing highway/ 

rail right-of-way. 

N H 

Potential for high 

impacts on 

residential 

properties and 

medium impacts on 

nonresidential 

properties. 

L 

Percentages of EJ 

populations are lower 

than the thresholds. 

I-580/ UPRR H 

Compatible with 

existing highway/ 

rail right-of-way. 

Incompatible with 

single-family uses. 

N M 

Potential for high 

impacts on 

residential 

properties and low 

to medium impacts 

on nonresidential 

properties. 

L 

Percentages of EJ 

populations are lower 

than the thresholds 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.7 Land Use and Planning 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.7-24

Corridor 

Possible 

Alignments 

Alignment 

Alternative 

Land Use 

Compatibility 

(H,M,L) 

Community 

Cohesion 

Impacts 

(Y/N) 

Potential For 

Property 

Impacts 

(H,M,L) 

Environmental 

Justice (EJ) 

Impacts (H,M,L) 

Patterson 

Pass/UPRR 

H 

Compatible with 

commercial, 

industrial, 

multifamily 

residential and open 

space uses and 

existing rail right-ofway. 

N L – M 

Alignment would 

traverse mostly 

through 

unincorporated and 

unused portions of 

Alameda County; 

however, there is a 

potential to have 

medium impacts on 

residential 

properties and low 

to medium impacts 

on nonresidential 

properties west of 

Livermore. 

L 

Percentages of EJ 

populations are lower 

than the thresholds. 

UPRR M - H 

Highly compatible 

with existing rail 

right-of-way, 

commercial and 

industrial uses. 

Low compatibility 

with agricultural 

uses. 

N M 

Potential for high 

impacts on 

residential 

properties and low 

to medium impacts 

on nonresidential 

properties. 

L 

Percentages of EJ 

populations are lower 

than the thresholds. 

1 of 4 Tracy 

Downtown 

(BNSF 

Connection) 

M 

Highly compatible 

with existing 

transportation rightof-way, agricultural 

and industrial uses. 

Low compatibility 

with residential 

uses. 

N M 

Potential impacts 

on residential and 

nonresidential 

uses. 

L 

Percentages of EJ 

populations are lower 

than the thresholds. 

Tracy ACE 

Station 

(BNSF 

Connection) 

M 

Highly compatible 

with existing rail 

right-of-way, 

agricultural and 

industrial uses. 

Low compatibility 

with residential 

uses. 

N M 

Potential impacts 

on residential and 

nonresidential 

uses. 

L 

Percentages of EJ 

populations are lower 

than the thresholds. 

Tracy ACE 

Station 

(UPRR 

Connection) 

M 

Highly compatible 

with existing rail 

right-of-way, 

agricultural and 

industrial uses. 

Low compatibility 

with residential 

uses. 

N M 

Potential impacts 

on residential and 

nonresidential 

uses. 

L 

Percentages of EJ 

populations are lower 

than the thresholds. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.7 Land Use and Planning 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.7-25

Corridor 

Possible 

Alignments 

Alignment 

Alternative 

Land Use 

Compatibility 

(H,M,L) 

Community 

Cohesion 

Impacts 

(Y/N) 

Potential For 

Property 

Impacts 

(H,M,L) 

Environmental 

Justice (EJ) 

Impacts (H,M,L) 

Tracy 

Downtown 

(UPRR 

Connection) 

M 

Highly compatible 

with existing 

transportation rightof-way, agricultural 

and industrial uses. 

Low compatibility 

with residential 

uses. 

N M 

Potential impacts 

on residential and 

nonresidential 

uses. 

L 

Percentages of EJ 

populations are lower 

than the thresholds. 

2 of 2 East Bay 

Connections 

H 

Compatible with 

existing UPRR 

right-of-way. 

N L 

Corridor would be 

built mostly within 

existing UPRR 

right-of-way. 

M 

Alignment within 

existing rail right-ofway. Percentages of 

EJ populations 

exceed thresholds. 

Station Location Options 

Pleasanton (I-680/Bernal Rd) M 

Incompatible with 

single-family 

residential use. 

Medium 

compatibility with 

nearby schools and 

community parks. 

Moderately 

consistent with 

plans for adjacent 

parks, athletics 

fields and public 

utilities. Compatible 

with existing ACE 

station. 

N L 

Station would be 

located at the 

Pleasanton ACE 

station site.

L 

Percentages of EJ 

populations are lower 

than the thresholds. 

Pleasanton (BART) H 

Compatible with 

Dublin/Pleasanton 

BART station and 

existing transit 

corridor. Consistent 

with planned mixeduse development 

around BART 

station. 

N L 

Station would be 

located at the 

Dublin/Pleasanton 

BART Station. 

L 

Percentages of EJ 

populations are lower 

than the thresholds. 

Livermore (Downtown) H 

Compatible with 

industrial and 

transportation uses. 

Consistent with 

policies for 

development of 

mixed-use 

downtown 

development. 

N L 

Potential for low 

potential impacts 

on undeveloped 

property 

L 

Percentages of EJ 

populations are lower 

than the thresholds. 

Livermore (I-580) H 

Compatible with 

existing 

transportation uses. 

Consistent with 

N L 

Potential for low 

potential impacts 

on undeveloped 

property 

L 

Percentages of EJ 

populations are lower 

than the thresholds. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.7 Land Use and Planning 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.7-26

Corridor 

Possible 

Alignments 

Alignment 

Alternative 

Land Use 

Compatibility 

(H,M,L) 

Community 

Cohesion 

Impacts 

(Y/N) 

Potential For 

Property 

Impacts 

(H,M,L) 

Environmental 

Justice (EJ) 

Impacts (H,M,L) 

plans for 

neighborhood 

commercial land 

uses. 

Livermore (Greenville Road/UPRR) H 

Compatible with 

industrial uses. 

Consistent with 

proposed industrial 

use. 

N M 

Potential for 

medium impacts on 

industrial property. 

L 

Percentages of EJ 

populations are lower 

than the thresholds. 

Livermore (Greenville Road/I-580) M 

Compatible with 

industrial uses. 

Incompatible with 

existing and 

proposed 

agricultural uses. 

Not consistent with 

proposed 

agricultural use. 

N L 

Potential for low 

impacts on 

undeveloped 

property. 

L 

Percentages of EJ 

populations are lower 

than the thresholds. 

Tracy (Downtown) H 

Highly consistent 

with planned 

downtown mixeduse development. 

N L 

Potential for low 

impacts on 

undeveloped 

property. 

L 

Percentages of EJ 

populations are lower 

than the thresholds. 

Tracy (ACE) M 

Compatible with 

industrial and 

agricultural uses. 

Consistent with 

policies to 

encourage 

improved regional 

rail service. 

N M 

Potential for 

medium impacts on 

industrial property. 

L 

Percentages of EJ 

populations are lower 

than the thresholds. 

San 

Francisco 

Bay 

Crossings 

1 of 2 Trans Bay 

Crossing – 

Transbay 

Transit 

Center 

H 

Highly compatible 

with transportation 

and industrial uses. 

N L 

Potential for low 

impacts on 

residential and 

nonresidential 

properties because 

alignment would be 

below grade. 

M 

Alignment below 

grade. Percentages 

of EJ populations 

exceed thresholds. 

Trans Bay 

Crossing – 4th

& King 

H 

Highly compatible 

with transportation 

and industrial uses. 

N L 

Potential for low 

impacts on 

residential and 

nonresidential 

properties because 

alignment would be 

below grade. 

M 

Alignment below 

grade. Percentages 

of EJ populations 

exceed thresholds. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.7 Land Use and Planning 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.7-27

Corridor 

Possible 

Alignments 

Alignment 

Alternative 

Land Use 

Compatibility 

(H,M,L) 

Community 

Cohesion 

Impacts 

(Y/N) 

Potential For 

Property 

Impacts 

(H,M,L) 

Environmental 

Justice (EJ) 

Impacts (H,M,L) 

1 of 6 Dumbarton 

(High Bridge) 

M 

Highly compatible 

with multifamily 

residential, 

industrial and 

commercial, and 

existing rail right-ofway uses. Low 

compatibility with 

crossing of Newark 

Slough. 

N M 

Potential for low 

impacts on 

industrial, 

commercial 

properties and high 

impacts on 

residential 

properties. 

M 

Alignment within 

existing rail right-ofway. Percentages of 

EJ populations 

exceed thresholds. 

Dumbarton 

(Low Bridge) 

M 

Highly compatible 

with multifamily 

residential, 

industrial and 

commercial, and 

existing rail right-ofway uses. Low 

compatibility with 

crossing of Newark 

Slough. 

N M 

Potential for low 

impacts on 

industrial, 

commercial 

properties and high 

impacts to 

residential 

properties. 

M 

Alignment within 

existing rail right-ofway. Percentages of 

EJ populations 

exceed thresholds. 

Dumbarton 

(Tube) 

M 

Highly compatible 

with multifamily 

residential, 

industrial and 

commercial, and 

existing rail right-ofway uses. Low 

compatibility with 

crossing of Newark 

Slough. 

N M 

Potential for low 

impacts on 

industrial, 

commercial 

properties and high 

impacts on 

residential 

properties. 

M 

Alignment within 

existing rail right-ofway. Percentages of 

EJ populations 

exceed thresholds. 

Fremont 

Central Park 

(High Bridge) 

L 

Low compatibility 

with Don Edwards 

San Francisco Bay 

Wildlife Refuge. 

Medium 

compatibility with 

industrial and 

commercial uses. 

N H 

Potential for high 

impacts on 

residential 

properties. 

M 

Alignment within 

existing rail right-ofway. Percentages of 

EJ populations 

exceed thresholds. 

Fremont 

Central Park 

(Low Bridge) 

L 

Low compatibility 

with Don Edwards 

San Francisco Bay 

Wildlife Refuge. 

Medium 

compatibility with 

industrial and 

commercial uses. 

N H 

Potential for high 

impacts on 

residential 

properties. 

M 

Alignment within 

existing rail right-ofway. Percentages of 

EJ populations 

exceed thresholds. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.7 Land Use and Planning 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.7-28

Corridor 

Possible 

Alignments 

Alignment 

Alternative 

Land Use 

Compatibility 

(H,M,L) 

Community 

Cohesion 

Impacts 

(Y/N) 

Potential For 

Property 

Impacts 

(H,M,L) 

Environmental 

Justice (EJ) 

Impacts (H,M,L) 

Fremont 

Central Park 

(Tube) 

L 

Low compatibility 

with Don Edwards 

San Francisco Bay 

Wildlife Refuge. 

Medium 

compatibility with 

industrial and 

commercial uses. 

N H 

Potential for high 

impacts on 

residential 

properties. 

M 

Alignment within 

existing rail right-ofway. Percentages of 

EJ populations 

exceed thresholds. 

Station Location Options 

Union City (Shinn) M 

Highly compatible 

with industrial uses. 

Low compatibility 

with single-family 

residential uses. 

N M 

Potential impacts 

on industrial 

properties. 

H 

New station 

constructed outside 

of existing right-ofway. Percentages of 

EJ populations within 

station area exceed 

thresholds. 

Central Valley 1 of 6 BNSF – 

UPRR 

M

High compatibility 

with existing rail 

corridor and 

industrial and 

commercial uses. 

Low compatibility 

with residential use. 

N L 

Alignment 

alternative 

traverses mostly 

rural land. 

M 

New alignment 

mostly within existing 

right-of-way. 

Percentages of EJ 

populations exceed 

thresholds. 

BNSF M

High compatibility 

with existing rail 

corridor and 

industrial and 

commercial uses. 

Low compatibility 

with residential use. 

N L 

Alignment 

alternative 

traverses mostly 

rural land. 

M 

New alignment within 

existing right-of-way. 

Percentages of EJ 

populations exceed 

thresholds. 

UPRR N/S M 

High compatibility 

with existing rail 

corridor and 

industrial, 

agricultural and 

commercial uses. 

Low compatibility 

with residential 

uses. 

N L 

Alignment 

alternative 

traverses mostly 

rural land and 

would be built 

within the existing 

UPRR right-of-way. 

M 

New alignment within 

existing right-of-way. 

Percentages of EJ 

populations exceed 

thresholds. 

BNSF Castle M 

High compatibility 

with existing rail 

corridor and 

industrial, 

agricultural and 

commercial uses. 

Low compatibility 

with residential 

uses. 

N L - M 

Alignment 

alternative 

traverses mostly 

rural land. 

Potential for 

property impacts 

on nonresidential 

and residential 

properties. 

M 

New alignment 

mostly within existing 

right-of-way. 

Percentages of EJ 

populations exceed 

thresholds. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.7 Land Use and Planning 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.7-29

Corridor 

Possible 

Alignments 

Alignment 

Alternative 

Land Use 

Compatibility 

(H,M,L) 

Community 

Cohesion 

Impacts 

(Y/N) 

Potential For 

Property 

Impacts 

(H,M,L) 

Environmental 

Justice (EJ) 

Impacts (H,M,L) 

UPRR – 

BNSF Castle 

M 

High compatibility 

with existing rail 

corridor and 

industrial, 

agricultural and 

commercial uses. 

Low compatibility 

with residential 

uses. 

N L - M 

Alignment 

alternative 

traverses mostly 

rural land. 

Potential for 

property impacts 

on nonresidential 

and residential 

properties. 

M 

New alignment 

mostly within existing 

right-of-way. 

Percentages of EJ 

populations exceed 

thresholds. 

UPRR – 

BNSF 

M 

High compatibility 

with existing rail 

corridor and 

industrial, 

agricultural and 

commercial uses. 

Low compatibility 

with residential 

uses. 

N L - M 

Alignment 

alternative 

traverses mostly 

rural land. 

Potential for 

property impacts 

on nonresidential 

and residential 

properties. 

M 

New alignment 

mostly within existing 

right-of-way. 

Percentages of EJ 

populations exceed 

thresholds. 

Station Location Options 

Modesto (Downtown) H 

Compatible with 

industrial and 

commercial uses. 

N M 

Medium potential 

for impacts on 

industrial 

properties.

L 

Percentages of EJ 

populations are lower 

than the thresholds. 

Briggsmore (Amtrak) L 

Incompatible with 

single-family 

residential and 

agricultural uses. 

N L 

Low potential for 

impacts on rural 

undeveloped 

properties.

L 

Percentages of EJ 

populations are lower 

than the thresholds. 

Merced (Downtown) M 

Compatible with 

commercial use. 

Incompatible with 

single-family 

.residential use. 

N M 

Medium potential 

for impacts on 

industrial 

properties.

H 

New station 

constructed outside 

of existing right-ofway. Percentages of 

EJ populations within 

station area exceed 

thresholds. 

Castle AFB M 

Compatible with 

industrial use and 

inactive Castle AFB. 

Incompatible with 

residential use. 

N L 

Low potential for 

impacts on rural 

undeveloped 

properties.

H 

New station 

constructed outside 

of existing right-ofway. Percentages of 

EJ populations within 

station area exceed 

thresholds. 

San Francisco to San Jose

Land Use Compatibility 

Alignment Alternatives 

San Francisco to Dumbarton: The San Francisco to Dumbarton alignment alternative would be highly 

compatible with existing land use because it would be constructed primarily within the existing 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.7 Land Use and Planning 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.7-30

Caltrain corridor. Grade separations along the alignment alternative would entail the conversion of 

residential and nonresidential property. 

Dumbarton to San Jose: The land use compatibility for the Dumbarton to San Jose alignment 

alternative would be the same as the San Francisco to Dumbarton alignment alternative. 

Station Location Options 

Transbay Transit Center: An underground HST station location option at the proposed Transbay 

Transit Center in downtown San Francisco would be highly compatible with the existing 

transportation use at the terminal site. The Transbay Transit Center station location option would be 

supportive of the high-intensity land use associated with the San Francisco financial district. 

Fourth and King. An underground HST station location option at Fourth and King in the City of San 

Francisco would be highly compatible with the existing Caltrain station and yard under which it would 

be located. The 4th & King station location option would support other land use in the vicinity of the 

Caltrain station, including Pacific Bell Park and the Mission Bay Redevelopment area.

Millbrae/SFO: The Millbrae/SFO station location option would be highly compatible with the existing 

Caltrain/BART station and would support future planned use for the creation of a transit-oriented 

district surrounding the Millbrae BART/Caltrain station area. Construction of the HST parking and 

drop-off facilities would convert approximately 2 ac of commercial property to transportation use.

Redwood City: An HST station location option at Redwood City would be highly compatible with the 

existing Caltrain station and adjacent downtown commercial/service oriented uses. The station 

location option would be consistent with the Redwood City Strategic General Plan, which promotes 

development of convenient transit alternatives to the use of the automobile. 

Palo Alto: An HST station location option at Palo Alto would be highly compatible with existing land 

use in the area, including multifamily housing and other facilities associated with Stanford University. 

The Palo Alto station location option would be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 

which supports the continued development and improvement of the University Avenue Multi-modal 

Transit Station. The Plan is supportive of a quiet, fast rail system that encircles the Bay and the 

development of intracounty and transbay transit systems that link Palo Alto to the rest of Santa Clara 

County and adjoining counties. Construction of the Palo Alto station location option, parking garage, 

and ancillary facilities would entail conversion of approximately 10 ac of industrial property to 

transportation use. 

Communities and Neighborhoods 

The San Francisco to San Jose corridor would be primarily within an existing, active commuter and 

freight rail corridor and therefore would not constitute any new physical or psychological barriers that 

would divide, disrupt, or isolate neighborhoods, individuals, or community focal points in the corridor. 

Between the 4th & King station location option and the Transbay Transit Center, the alignment 

alternative would be constructed underground and would not have an effect on community cohesion. 

Construction of grade separations along the corridor between San Francisco and San Jose would 

have a beneficial effect on community cohesion by improving circulation between neighborhood 

areas. 

Property 

San Francisco to Dumbarton: There would be a low potential for property impacts along this 

alignment alternative because the rail improvements would be mostly contained within existing rail 

right-of way. Grade separations along the alignment alternative could entail the conversion of 

residential and nonresidential property. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.7 Land Use and Planning 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.7-31

Dumbarton to San Jose: The potential for property impacts for the Dumbarton to San Jose alignment 

alternative would be the same as the San Francisco to Dumbarton alignment alternative. 

Environmental Justice 

The San Francisco to San Jose corridor would be along an existing transportation corridor; therefore, 

it would not be expected to result in disproportionate impacts on the environmental justice 

communities identified in the study area. The five potential station location options (Transbay Transit 

Center, 4th and King, Millbrae/SFO, Redwood City, and Palo Alto) do not have substantial minority or 

low-income populations in their respective vicinities. Although there is the potential for impacts on 

environmental justice communities, they are not disproportionate to these communities. Therefore, 

the potential for impacts would be medium. 

Oakland to San Jose Corridor

Land Use Compatibility 

Alignment Alternatives 

West Oakland to Niles Junction: Land use compatibility levels for the West Oakland to Niles Junction 

alignment alternative would be high because it would be constructed primarily within the existing 

UPRR/I-880 corridor. Grade separations along the alignment might entail the conversion of 

residential and nonresidential property. 

12th Street/City Center to Niles Junction: The land use compatibility levels for the 12th Street/City 

Center to Niles Junction alignment alternative would be the same as the West Oakland to Niles 

Junction alignment alternative. 

Niles Junction to San Jose via Trimble: The land use compatibility levels for the Niles Junction to San 

Jose via Trimble alignment alternative would be the same as the West Oakland to Niles Junction 

alignment alternative including the portion of the alignment alternative that travels via tunnel at 

Trimble Road. 

Niles Junction to San Jose via I-880: The land use compatibility levels for the Niles Junction to San 

Jose via I-880 alignment alternative would be the same as the West Oakland to Niles Junction 

alignment alternative because it would travel along the I-880 corridor through San Jose.

Station Location Options 

West Oakland/7th Street: An underground HST station location option at West Oakland would be 

highly compatible with the existing West Oakland BART station at this location. Existing residential 

uses in the vicinity are primarily single family; however, the Oakland General Plan designates the 

West Oakland station area as a transit-oriented district and proposes increased intensity of use over 

the planning period. Approximately 2 ac of land would be acquired for construction of the West 

Oakland station location option parking area. The property that would be acquired is currently in 

transportation/utility use; therefore, no land use conflict would occur. 

12th Street/City Center: An underground HST station location option at 12th Street in the City of 

Oakland would be highly compatible with the existing civic center and high-intensity commercial and 

service uses associated with downtown Oakland. The proposed station location option would be 

consistent with the existing 12th Street/City Center BART station and would support policies in the 

Oakland General Plan that designate the 12th Street/City Center station area as a transit-oriented 

district.

Oakland Airport: The Oakland Airport station location option would be highly compatible with the 

nearby industrial complexes and the commercial and service uses associated with the McAfee 

Coliseum and ORACLE Arena. The proposed station location option would be consistent with the 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.7 Land Use and Planning 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.7-32

Oakland General Plan, which designates the station location option area as a transit-oriented district 

and as an intermodal transfer point.

Union City (BART): The Union City (BART) station location option would be highly compatible with 

the transportation facilities and industrial uses in the surrounding area. An HST station location 

option at the existing Union City BART station would be consistent with the Union City General Plan

to implement policies for development of a regional intermodal facility at this location. The station 

location option would also be supportive of future planned land use to develop a research and 

development campus in the area.

Fremont (Warm Springs): The Fremont (Warm Springs) station location option would be highly 

compatible with the transportation facilities and industrial uses surrounding the station location 

option. It would also be consistent with plans for a future BART station at this location. 

Communities and Neighborhoods 

The Niles/I-880 alignment alternative would have no effect on community cohesion because it would 

be constructed primarily within the existing UPRR/I-880 right-of-way or beneath grade. Although the 

alignment alternative may require the relocation of residential property for the construction of grade 

separations, it would not create a new physical barrier within existing neighborhoods. 

Property 

West Oakland to Niles Junction: The West Oakland to Niles Junction alignment alternative would be 

mostly contained within existing UPRR/I-880 right-of-way; therefore, it would have a low potential for 

property impacts. Grade separations along the alignment alternative could entail the conversion of 

residential and nonresidential property.

12th Street/City Center to Niles Junction: The potential for property impacts for the 12th Street/City 

Center alignment alternative would be the same as the West Oakland to Niles Junction alignment 

alternative. 

Niles Junction to San Jose via Trimble: The potential for property impacts for the Niles Junction to 

San Jose via Trimble alignment alternative would be the same as the West Oakland to Niles Junction 

alignment alternative.

Niles Junction to San Jose via I-880: The potential for property impacts for the Niles Junction to San 

Jose via I-880 alignment alternative would be the same as the West Oakland to Niles Junction 

alignment alternative.

Environmental Justice 

Substantial percentages of minority populations are located in the study area for the Oakland to San 

Jose corridor. Because the alignment alternatives would be mostly contained within existing rail 

right-of-way, they would not be expected to result in disproportionate impacts on environmental 

justice communities. 

The six potential station location options along this corridor also have substantial environmental 

justice populations nearby. Because the West Oakland/7th Street and Oakland/12th Street stations 

would be built below grade and the Oakland Airport and Union City (BART) stations would be built at 

existing BART stations, construction of these is not expected to have disproportionate impacts on 

environmental justice communities. The Shinn and Warm Springs stations would be constructed 

outside the existing rail right-of-way, but because these stations would be constructed on industrial 

properties, they are not expected to have disproportionate impacts on environmental justice 

communities. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.7 Land Use and Planning 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.7-33

San Jose to Central Valley Corridor

Land Use Compatibility 

Alignment Alternatives 

Pacheco: The Pacheco alignment alternative would be highly compatible with the existing Caltrain 

corridor between San Jose and Gilroy. However, as the alignment alternative veers from the existing 

right-of-way east of Gilroy, it would potentially be incompatible as it proceeds through agricultural 

land and parkland. Overall, this alignment alternative would have a medium compatibility with 

surrounding land uses. 

Henry Miller (UPRR Connection): The Henry Miller (UPRR Connection) alignment alternative is 

compatible with existing land uses as it traverses at-grade along Henry Miller Road between Santa 

Nella and Elgin Avenue. The alignment alternative becomes highly incompatible with agricultural land 

uses east of Elgin Avenue and the GEA. Overall, the alignment alternative would have a medium 

land use compatibility rating. 

Henry Miller (BNSF Connection): Land use compatibility for the Henry Miller (BNSF Connection) 

alignment alternative would be the same as the Henry Miller (UPRR Connection) alignment 

alternative. 

GEA North: The GEA North alignment alternative would be highly incompatible with existing 

agricultural uses. West of the City of Atwater, alignment alternative segments that would connect 

with the Central Valley alignment alternative would be highly incompatible with agricultural uses. 

Overall, this alignment alternative would have a low compatibility with existing land uses. 

Station Location Options 

San Jose (Diridon): The proposed San Jose (Diridon) station location option would be highly 

compatible with the existing San Jose Diridon Caltrain station and the surrounding industrial and 

high-density residential uses. The station location option would be consistent with the San Jose 

Downtown Strategy Plan that promotes redevelopment of the downtown toward the west and closer 

to the station location option. 

Morgan Hill: The Morgan Hill station location option would be highly compatible with the existing 

Caltrain station and nearby commercial/service oriented and other urban uses. The station location 

option would be consistent with the City of Morgan Hill General Plan policies that support the 

expansion of alternative transportation systems, as well as the development of a multi-modal transit 

transfer center.

Gilroy: The Gilroy station location option would be highly compatible with the existing Caltrain 

station and adjoining commercial uses; however, it would be incompatible with the adjacent singlefamily residential uses. The proposed station would be consistent with the policies and actions stated 

in the Gilroy General Plan that place a high priority on strengthening and restoring the downtown 

area, including the development of an active multi-modal transit center. Although the proposed 

station location option would be incompatible with the existing low-density residential uses, the 

general plan promotes the future development of higher-density residential and mixed uses in close 

proximity to the Caltrain station and the multi-modal transit center.

Communities and Neighborhoods 

Pacheco: This alignment alternative traverses the dense urban city of San Jose but also travels 

through small rural cities such as Coyote, Morgan Hill, Gilroy, and San Felipe, which consist of small 

single-family residential neighborhoods and farmsteads. In northern San Felipe, the alignment 

alternative has a low potential to impact farmstead; however, there would be no loss of community 

or neighborhood cohesion as a result. In other locations where this alignment alternative would 

create a new transportation corridor (east of Gilroy), the alignment alternative would primarily pass 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.7 Land Use and Planning 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.7-34

through agricultural or open space lands and would not result in community cohesion impacts on 

neighborhoods. 

Henry Miller (UPRR Connection): The Henry Miller (UPRR Connection) alignment alternative primarily 

passes through agricultural lands and would not result in community cohesion impacts on 

neighborhoods. 

Henry Miller (BNSF Connection): The Henry Miller (BNSF Connection) alignment alternative primarily 

passes through agricultural lands and would not result in community cohesion impacts on 

neighborhoods. 

GEA North: The GEA North alignment alternative traverses primarily through agricultural lands and 

would not result in community cohesion impacts on neighborhoods. 

Property 

Pacheco: Between the proposed Diridon and Gilroy station location options, grade separations along 

the alignment alternative could entail the conversion of residential and nonresidential property. The 

proposed San Jose to Central Valley Corridor would require new right-of-way east of the City of 

Gilroy. Overall, potential for property impacts is low. 

Henry Miller (UPRR Connection): Because the Henry Miller (UPRR Connection) alignment alternative 

would traverse areas with agricultural or open space land uses, it would be expected to result in a 

low potential for property impacts on homes or buildings. 

Henry Miller (BNSF Connection): The potential for property impacts with the Henry Miller (BNSF 

Connection) alignment alternative would be the same as the Henry Miller (UPRR Connection) 

alignment alternative. 

GEA North: The GEA North alignment alternative would traverse areas with agricultural or open 

space land uses and would be expected to result in a low potential for property impacts on homes or 

buildings. 

Environmental Justice 

The study area for the San Jose to Central Valley corridor includes a variety of neighborhoods and a 

diverse multiethnic population. All four alignment alternatives have environmental justice populations 

that exceed the thresholds. Where the alignment alternatives use existing rail rights-of-way (i.e., 

along the Caltrain Corridor), they would not be expected to result in disproportionate impacts on 

environmental justice communities. The environmental justice population(s) percentages exceed the 

thresholds east of Gilroy in the open space and more rural areas, but these populations are sparse 

and distant from the alignment alternatives. 

East Bay to Central Valley Corridor

Land Use Compatibility 

Alignment Alternatives 

I-680/580/UPRR: The I-680/580/UPRR alignment alternative would be highly compatible with 

existing land uses because it would primarily pass through existing freeway and rail right-of-way. At 

the base of the Diablo Mountain Range, the alignment alternative would have a low compatible rating 

as it crosses through the Castlewood Country Club before continuing north within existing I-680 

right-of-way. 

I-580/UPRR: The I-580/UPRR alignment alternative would be highly compatible with existing land 

uses as it proceeds by cut or tunnel through the Altamont Pass and its parkland and open space land 

uses. The alignment alternative is also compatible as it proceeds through agricultural land uses on 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.7 Land Use and Planning 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.7-35

existing rail right-of-way. However, for a short distance, the alignment alternative becomes 

incompatible as it traverses, at-grade, existing single-family residential land uses. 

Patterson Pass/UPRR: The Patterson Pass/UPRR alignment alternative would be highly compatible 

with existing land uses as it proceeds by cut or tunnel through the Diablo Mountain Range, which 

contains parkland and open space land uses. Beyond the mountain range, the Patterson Pass/UPRR 

alignment alternative either follows existing rail right-of-way or proceeds by cut or tunnel through 

agricultural and open space land uses, which makes it highly compatible with existing land uses. 

UPRR: The UPRR alignment alternative would be highly compatible with existing land uses as it 

proceeds by cut or tunnel through the Diablo Mountain Range, which contains parkland and open 

space land uses. When the alignment alternative is not proceeding by tunnel, it passes through on 

an existing rail corridor through single-family residential, agricultural, and rural residential land uses. 

Tracy Downtown (BNSF Connection): The Tracy Downtown (BNSF Connection) alignment alternative 

would be highly compatible with existing land uses as it traverses along existing rail right-of-way 

through Tracy and SR 120 through Manteca. The alignment alternative would also be highly 

compatible with industrial and agricultural uses in the eastern portions of Tracy and Manteca as it 

traverses along existing transportation right-of-way. Residential land uses through the central 

portion of Tracy and southwestern Manteca would have a low compatibility rating. Agricultural land 

uses in the vicinity of the Tracy Downtown (BNSF Connection) alignment alternative would have a 

low compatibility with the alignment alternative where it would create a new transportation corridor 

east of Escalon. 

Tracy ACE Station (BNSF Connection): The Tracy ACE Station (BNSF Connection) alignment 

alternative would be highly compatible with existing freight and passenger rail right-of-way, industrial 

uses southeast of Tracy and south of Lathrop, and agricultural uses in unincorporated areas of San 

Joaquin County. However, in the southern portion of Tracy, residential neighborhoods have a low 

compatibility rating with the proposed alignment alternative. Agricultural land uses along the Tracy 

ACE Station (BNSF Connection) alignment alternative would have low compatibility with the 

alignment alternative where it would create a new transportation corridor east of Escalon. Overall, 

the alignment alternative would have a medium land use compatibility. 

Tracy ACE Station (UPRR Connection): The Tracy ACE Station (UPRR Connection) alignment 

alternative would be the same as the Tracy ACE Station (BNSF Connection) alignment alternative 

except that at the UPRR connector, adjacent industrial land uses would be highly compatible. 

Tracy Downtown (UPRR Connection): The Tracy Downtown (UPRR Connection) alignment alternative 

would be the same as the Tracy Downtown (BNSF Connection) alignment alternative except that at 

the UPRR connector, adjacent industrial land uses would be highly compatible. 

Station Location Options 

Pleasanton (I-680/Bernal): The Pleasanton (I-680/Bernal) station location option would have a 

medium compatibility with surrounding land uses, including single-family residential uses, Pleasanton 

Middle School, and the Fairways Golf Course. This proposed station location option is at the existing 

Pleasanton ACE station and is highly compatible with planned office land uses as set forth by the 

Downtown Specific Plan by the City of Pleasanton. Policies for the Draft Bernal Property Phase II 

Specific Plan, which call for the construction of community and neighborhood parks, athletics fields, 

and public utilities on land west and adjacent to the proposed site, would be moderately consistent. 

Dublin/Pleasanton: The Dublin/Pleasanton station location option would be highly compatible with 

the existing BART station and transit corridor. This station location option would be consistent with 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.7 Land Use and Planning 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.7-36

policies in the Pleasanton General Plan, which call for the planned mixture of land uses around the 

Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station. 

Livermore (Downtown): The Livermore (Downtown) station location option would be constructed on 

and would be highly compatible with the industrial property along an existing commuter/freight 

corridor. This proposed station location option would be consistent with the Livermore General Plan 

(2003) policies for the development of mixed-use downtown development along the existing 

commuter/freight rail corridor. 

Livermore (I-580): The Livermore (I-580) station location option would be located adjacent to I-580 

and would be highly compatible with the existing transportation corridor. The proposed station 

location option would be consistent with the Livermore General Plan (2003) policies for neighborhood 

commercial land uses at this location. 

Livermore (Greenville Road/UPRR): The proposed Livermore (Greenville Road/UPRR) station location 

option would be highly compatible with the industrial uses at this location. It would also be 

consistent with the Livermore General Plan (2003) proposed industrial use at this location. 

Livermore (Greenville Road/I-580): This proposed HST station location option would be located near 

the median of I-580, just east of the Greenville Road interchange. The proposed station location 

option facilities would be highly compatible with the existing industrial uses located west of the site. 

The proposed station location option would not be consistent with existing and proposed agricultural 

uses. Overall, the alignment alternative would have a medium land use compatibility.

Tracy (Downtown): The proposed Tracy (Downtown) station location option would have a high 

compatibility rating because it would be located in downtown Tracy and would be consistent with 

planned downtown mixed-use development, as stated in the Draft City of Tracy General Plan. 

However, there are existing single-family residential uses near the site. 

Tracy (ACE): The proposed Tracy (ACE) station location option would have a medium compatibility 

with surrounding agricultural lands and existing and proposed industrial land uses in the vicinity of 

the site. The proposed station would be consistent with specific policies in the Draft City of Tracy 

General Plan to encourage improved regional rail service. 

Communities and Neighborhoods 

Most of the alignment alternatives in this corridor would pass through communities and 

neighborhoods within an existing active highway or commuter/freight rail right-of-way. In locations 

where the alignment alternatives would create a new transportation corridor, the alignment 

alternative would primarily pass via cut or tunnel through the Diablo Mountain Range and would not 

result in community cohesion impacts in neighborhoods. 

Property 

Within the East Bay to Central Valley corridor, areas of potentially high property impacts would occur 

in the vicinity of urbanized areas in the cities of Pleasanton, Livermore, Tracy, and Manteca, where 

the alignment alternatives would be adjacent to existing industrial, commercial, and residential 

properties. 

I-680/580/UPRR: There would be a potential for high property impacts on industrial properties along 

this alignment alternative in Pleasanton and Livermore. The potentially affected properties would be 

adjacent to the existing highway corridor.

I-580/UPRR: The potential for property impacts along this alignment alternative would be low to 

medium because it would either create a new transportation corridor through rural undeveloped land 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.7 Land Use and Planning 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.7-37

in unincorporated areas of Alameda. There is a potential for property impacts on industrial properties 

adjacent to the existing highway corridor. 

Patterson Pass/UPRR: Overall, the potential for property impacts for this alignment alternative would 

be low to medium. The potential for medium property impacts would occur in industrial areas of 

Pleasanton and Livermore. A new HST line through rural, undeveloped areas in unincorporated parts 

of Alameda County would have low to medium potential for property impacts. The potential for 

property impacts along the proposed Patterson Pass/UPRR alignment alternative is low because it 

would traverse through an unincorporated portion of Alameda County, east of Livermore. Grade 

separations along the alignment alternative could entail the conversion of residential and 

nonresidential property. 

UPRR: Overall, the potential for property impacts for this alignment alternative would be medium. 

Along the UPRR alignment alternative, the potential for property impacts would be high in the 

residential areas of Pleasanton and Livermore that are adjacent to the existing rail corridor. The 

potential for medium property impacts would occur in industrial areas of Pleasanton and Livermore. 

A new HST line through rural, undeveloped areas in unincorporated parts of Alameda County would 

have low to medium potential for property impacts. Grade separations along the alignment 

alternative could entail the conversion of residential and nonresidential property. 

Tracy Downtown (BNSF Connection): The Tracy Downtown (BNSF Connection) alignment alternative 

would be mostly contained within existing freight right-of-way. However, grade separations along 

the alignment alternative could entail the conversion of residential and nonresidential property, which 

would have a medium potential for property impacts. The BNSF connector would traverse areas with 

mostly agricultural or open space land uses, they would be expected to result in a low potential for 

property impacts on homes or buildings. 

Tracy ACE Station (BNSF Connection): Overall, the Tracy ACE Station alignment alternative would be 

mostly contained within existing rail right-of-way. Grade separations along the alignment alternative 

might entail the conversion of residential and nonresidential property; therefore, the potential for 

property impacts would be medium. Because the alignment alternative would traverse areas with 

mostly agricultural or open space land uses, it would be expected to result in a low potential for 

property impacts on homes or buildings. 

Tracy ACE Station (UPRR Connection): The Tracy ACE Station (UPRR Connection) alignment 

alternative would be the same as the Tracy ACE Station (BNSF Connection) alignment alternative 

except that at the UPRR connector would be a medium potential for impacts on industrial properties 

west of Manteca. 

Tracy Downtown (UPRR Connection): The Tracy Downtown (UPRR Connection) alignment alternative 

would be the same as the Tracy Downtown (BNSF Connector) alignment alternative except that at 

the UPRR connector there would be a medium potential for impacts on industrial properties west of 

Manteca. 

Environmental Justice 

The environmental justice populations in the study areas for the East Bay to Central Valley corridor 

and proposed stations do not exceed the percentage thresholds. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.7 Land Use and Planning 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.7-38

San Francisco Bay Crossings

Land Use Compatibility 

Alignment Alternatives 

Trans Bay Crossing – Transbay Transit Center: The Trans Bay Crossing – Transbay Transit Center 

alignment alternative between San Francisco and Alameda counties would be highly compatible with 

existing transportation and industrial uses located in the cities of San Francisco and Oakland. 

Trans Bay Crossing – 4th & King: Land use compatibility for the Trans Bay Crossing – 4th & King 

alignment alternative would be the same as the Trans Bay Crossing – 4th & King alignment 

alternative. 

Dumbarton (High Bridge): The Dumbarton alignment alternative would generally be highly 

compatible with existing transportation corridors, multifamily residential, and commercial land uses. 

Industrial uses on both sides of the Dumbarton Bridge would also be highly compatible with the 

alignment alternative. However, the alignment alternative would result in a low compatibility where it 

crosses the Newark Slough. Overall, this alignment alternative would have a medium compatibility. 

Dumbarton (Low Bridge): Land use compatibility for the Dumbarton (Low Bridge) alignment 

alternative would be the same as the Dumbarton (High Bridge) alignment alternative. 

Dumbarton (Tube): Land use compatibility for the Dumbarton (Tube) alignment alternative would be 

the same as the Dumbarton (High Bridge) alignment alternative.

Fremont Central Park (High Bridge): The Fremont Central Park (High Bridge) alignment alternative 

would potentially have a low to medium compatibility with existing single-family residential and 

community park land uses in the City of Fremont. The proposed alignment alternative would pass 

through the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge on existing rail, resulting in a 

low compatibility with the existing land uses of the refuge. Nearby industrial and commercial uses, 

east of I-880, would have the potential for high compatibility. 

Fremont Central Park (Low Bridge): Land use compatibility for the Fremont Central Park (Low 

Bridge) alignment alternative would be the same as the Fremont Central Park (High Bridge) 

alignment alternative. 

Fremont Central Park (Tube): Land use compatibility for the Fremont Central Park (Tube) alignment 

alternative would be the same as the Fremont Central Park (High Bridge) alignment alternative. 

Station Location Options 

Union City (Shinn): The Union City (Shinn) station location option would be compatible with the 

industrial uses located in the surrounding area. The proposed station location option would have low 

compatibility with the single-family residential use to the south of the proposed alignment alternative. 

Communities and Neighborhoods 

The Trans Bay Crossing alignment alternatives would proceed via tunnel under the San Francisco Bay 

between the cities of San Francisco and Oakland and would not result in any community cohesion 

impacts. The Dumbarton alignment alternatives would follow an existing rail alignment and would 

not result in community cohesion impacts on neighborhoods. The Fremont Central Park alignment 

alternatives would follow an existing rail alignment west of I-880 in Newark. East of I-880, the 

alignment alternatives would create a new transportation corridor between two neighborhoods in the 

City of Fremont. There would be no community cohesion impacts as a result of these alignment 

alternatives because they would follow an exiting major utility corridor. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.7 Land Use and Planning 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.7-39

Property 

Trans Bay Crossing – Transbay Transit Center: The Trans Bay Crossing – Transbay Transit Center 

alignment alternative would have areas of potentially low property impacts because the new 

transportation corridor would be constructed in an urban setting below grade. 

Trans Bay Crossing – 4th & King: The Trans Bay Crossing – 4th & King alignment alternative would 

have the same potential for property impacts as the Trans Bay Crossing – Transbay Transit Center 

alignment alternative.

Dumbarton (High Bridge): The Dumbarton alignment alternative would have the potential for 

medium property impacts because it would generally follow an existing corridor through suburban 

industrial, commercial, and residential areas. Grade separations could entail the conversion of 

residential and nonresidential property. 

Dumbarton (Low Bridge): The Dumbarton (Low Bridge) alignment alternative would have the same 

potential for property impacts as the Dumbarton (High Bridge) alignment alternative. 

Dumbarton (Tube): The Dumbarton (Tube) alignment alternative would have the same potential for 

property impacts as the Dumbarton (High Bridge) alignment alternative.

Fremont Central Park (High Bridge): Areas of potentially high property impacts would occur along 

the Fremont Central Park (High Bridge) alignment alternative because the proposed alignment 

alternative would traverse through a new transportation corridor between two neighborhoods in 

Fremont, east of Blacow Park. Grade separations could entail the conversion of residential and 

nonresidential property. 

Fremont Central Park (Low Bridge): The Fremont Central Park (Low Bridge) alignment alternative 

would have the same potential for property impacts as the Fremont Central Park (High Bridge) 

alignment alternative. 

Fremont Central Park (Tube): The Fremont Central Park (Tube) alignment alternative would have 

the same potential for property impacts as the Fremont Central Park (High Bridge) alignment 

alternative.

Environmental Justice 

Ethnic minority populations have been identified within the study areas for all of the proposed San 

Francisco Bay Crossings. The potential impacts, if any, for these communities would depend in part 

on the extent of the new right-of-way that would be required for the HST Alignment Alternatives. 

Because the alignment would be mostly contained within existing rail right-of-way, it would not be 

expected to result in disproportionate impacts on environmental justice communities. 

Central Valley Alignment

Land Use Compatibility 

Alignment Alternatives 

BNSF – UPRR: North of Merced, the BNSF – UPRR alignment alternative contains some residential 

development and, given the relatively low potential to impact residents, the compatibility rating 

would be high. However, because of the high percentage of agricultural production, this alignment 

alternative would have a medium compatibility. In Merced County, along the existing UPRR corridor, 

land uses are mostly agricultural with some residential. This land use pattern is considered to have a 

medium compatibility with this alternative. 

BNSF: The BNSF alignment alternative would be the same as the BNSF – UPRR alignment alternative 

except that south of Merced, the alignment alternative would continue along the existing BNSF 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.7 Land Use and Planning 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.7-40

corridor traveling through mostly agricultural land with some industrial and commercial uses. Overall, 

this alignment alternative would have a medium compatibility with existing land uses. 

UPRR N/S: The UPRR alignment alternative contains some residential development between the 

cities of Stockton and Modesto. The predominant land use adjoining the route consists of orchards, 

groves, vineyards, and nurseries. Between the cities of Modesto and Chowchilla, along the existing 

UPRR corridor, land uses are mostly agricultural with some residential. This land use pattern is 

considered to have a medium compatibility with the alignment alternative.

BNSF Castle: The BNSF Castle alignment alternative would be the same as the BNSF – UPRR 

alignment alternative except that the alignment alternative would continue just west of Castle AFB 

before continuing along the existing BNSF rail right-of-way, traveling through mostly agricultural land 

with some industrial and commercial uses. Overall, this alignment alternative would have a medium 

compatibility with existing land uses. 

UPRR – BNSF Castle: The UPRR – BNSF Castle alignment alternative would be the same as the UPRR 

N/S alignment alternative through Turlock and the BNSF Castle alignment alternative north of Winton 

with the exception of the connection between the UPRR and BNSF corridors just south of the Merced 

County line, where the alignment alternative would pass through agricultural land uses. Overall, this 

alignment alternative would have a medium compatibility with existing land uses. 

UPRR – BNSF: The UPRR – BNSF alignment alternative would be the same as the UPRR N/S 

alignment alternative in San Joaquin County, the connection to the BNSF north of Winton, and the 

BNSF alignment alternative south of the connection. 

Station Location Options 

Modesto (Downtown): The Modesto (Downtown) station location option area has a small amount of 

residential land uses. Predominant land uses in the area are commercial and industrial, which would 

result in a high level of compatibility with the HST station location option. 

Briggsmore (Amtrak): The Briggsmore station location option in the City of Modesto has nearly 

double the residential use as the Modesto (Downtown) station location option. The residential 

development in this area is lower density rural, mobile homes, and single-family subdivisions. The 

HST station location option is therefore considered to have a low compatibility with existing land 

uses. 

Merced (Downtown): The Merced (Downtown) station location option is characterized by a moderate 

amount of residential development and supportive community commercial and governmental 

functions. Because of the extent of residential uses and the community-serving nature of the 

commercial activities (as opposed to more regional-serving uses), this station location option is 

assigned a medium compatibility rating.

Castle AFB : The Castle AFB station location option along the existing UPRR right-of-way is 

surrounded by agricultural uses and rural residential uses. The station location option along the 

existing BNSF right-of-way is surrounded by the inactive Castle AFB to the north and agricultural 

lands to the south. Both station location options are rated as having medium compatibility with these 

types of land uses.

Communities and Neighborhoods 

For much of the Central Valley corridor, the alignment alternatives follow existing rail lines, either the 

UPRR or BNSF. In many cases, smaller rural communities are developed along the existing UPRR 

railroad tracks. There would be no neighborhood cohesion impact on these communities as a result 

of the alignments. In larger communities such as Stockton, French Camp, Ripon, Modesto, Ceres, 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.7 Land Use and Planning 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.7-41

Atwater, Merced, and Chowchilla, the existing UPRR rail line divides the community. The existing 

BNSF corridor also divides large communities such as Escalon, Riverbank, and Empire. A parallel, atgrade set of tracks would therefore not generally be expected to result in an additional physical 

separation which exists between land uses on either side of the corridor. 

Property 

BNSF – UPRR: For this alignment alternative, areas of potentially high property impacts would occur 

in urbanized areas where the alignment alternative would be located adjacent to an existing 

transportation corridor. Areas of potentially high and medium impacts are located between Stockton 

and Merced along both the existing UPRR and BNSF alignments. Grade separations along the 

alignment alternative might entail the conversion of residential and nonresidential property. Because 

the alignment alternative would be mostly contained within existing UPRR and BNSF right-of-way and 

would traverse through mostly agricultural land and open space, there would be a low potential for 

property impacts. 

BNSF: The potential for property impacts with the BNSF alignment would be the same as the BNSF – 

UPRR alignment alternative except that the alignment alternative would follow the existing BNSF 

right-of-way and not the UPRR right-of-way. 

UPRR N/S: The potential for property impacts with the UPRR N/S alignment alternative would be the 

same as the BNSF – UPRR alignment alternative except that the alignment alternative would follow 

the existing UPRR right-of-way and not the BNSF right-of-way. 

BNSF Castle: For this corridor, the potential for property impacts with the BNSF Castle alignment 

alternative would range from low to medium. The alignment alternative that would be within existing 

BNSF right-of-way would have the potential for low property impacts. A portion of the alignment 

alternative, east of Winton, would travel near Castle AFB and a residential neighborhood; the 

potential for property impacts for this area would be medium. 

UPRR – BNSF Castle: The potential for property impacts with the UPRR – BNSF Castle alignment 

alternative would be the same as the BNSF Castle alignment alternative except that the alignment 

alternative would follow the existing UPRR right-of-way within San Joaquin County. 

UPRR – BNSF: The potential for property impacts with the UPRR – BNSF alignment alternative would 

be the same as the BNSF Castle alignment alternative except that the potential for property impacts 

would be medium in areas north of Merced. 

Environmental Justice 

Within the corridor study area, environmental justice populations have been identified along the 

UPRR N/S alignment alternative and in the Merced (Downtown) and Castle AFB station areas. Since 

both alignment alternatives would be along existing rail corridors, they are not expected to result in 

disproportionate impacts on environmental justice communities. Although there is the potential for 

impacts on environmental justice communities, they are not disproportionate to these communities. 

Therefore, the potential for impacts would be medium. 

3.7.4 Role of Design Practices in Avoiding and Minimizing Effects 

The Authority is committed to utilizing existing transportation corridors and rail lines for the proposed 

HST system to minimize the need for additional rights-of-way and the associated potential property 

impacts. Most HST Alignment Alternatives are either within or adjacent to a major existing transportation 

corridor (existing railroad or highway right-of-way). To a large extent, these existing transportation 

corridors already present barriers and impose other impacts on existing communities. Although the HST 

system would often introduce an additional (fenced) barrier, the HST system would maintain and in many 

cases improve existing access conditions through the grade separation of existing services. Moreover, 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.7 Land Use and Planning 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.7-42

portions of the alignment alternatives would be on aerial structures or in tunnels, allowing for vehicular or 

pedestrian access across the alignment alternatives. 

The Authority has also adopted strategies for HST station location options that would incorporate transitoriented design and smart growth land use policies as described in Chapter 6. 

3.7.5 Mitigation Strategies and CEQA Significance Conclusions 

Based on the analysis above, and considering the design practices in Section 3.7.4, the HST Alignment 

Alternatives would have a potentially significant impact related to land use compatibility at the various 

locations identified. The station location options and the alignment alternatives for the San Francisco to 

San Jose and the Oakland to San Jose corridors have a high land use compatibility overall because they 

are mostly within existing transportation right-of-way. The East Bay to Central Valley corridor (including 

stations) would have a medium to high compatibility with existing land use. Medium land use 

compatibility for the stations and rail alignment occurs along the East Bay to Central Valley and San 

Francisco Bay Crossings corridors as they travel through a mixture of areas of low (e.g. agricultural and 

residential) and high (e.g. existing transportation) compatibility. The San Jose to Central Valley corridor 

would have the most potentially significant impact on land use because it would mostly create a new 

transportation corridor through agricultural and open space land uses. The station location options for 

the San Jose to Central Valley corridor, however, would be highly compatible with existing transportation 

land uses. 

While every effort has been made to incorporate alignment alternatives and station location options that 

are compatible with existing local land use plans and ordinances to the extent feasible, in many cases 

local plans and ordinances do not address transportation options such as the HST system. In addition, 

many local land use plans and ordinances have not been updated for several years, though they may be 

updated over time to acknowledge and support implementation of a HST system. The potential for land 

use incompatibility is considered significant at this programmatic level due to the uncertainties involved; 

however, such impacts may not be realized over the 20- to 25-year time horizon for implementing the 

HST system. 

Mitigation strategies, as well as the design practices in Section 3.7.4, can be refined and applied at the 

project level to reduce this impact, as discussed below. These mitigation measures would be 

incorporated as feasible. 

A. LAND USE COMPATIBILITY 

Local land use plans and ordinances would be further considered in the selection of alignment 

alternatives and station location options. Project-level review would consider consistency with 

existing and planned land use, neighborhood access needs, and multi-modal connectivity 

opportunities. 

Potential mitigation strategies to alleviate or minimize land use related impacts associated with the 

HST Alignment Alternatives might include, but are not limited to, the following: 

• Continue to apply design practices to minimize property needed for the HST system and to stay 

within or adjacent to existing transportation corridors to the extent feasible. 

• Work with local governments to consider local plans and local access needs and to apply design 

practices to limit disruption to communities. 

• Work with local governments to establish requirements for station location option area plans and 

opportunities for transit-oriented development. 

• Work with local governments to enhance multi-modal connections for HST station location 

options. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.7 Land Use and Planning 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.7-43

• Coordinate with cities and counties to ensure that HST facilities will be consistent with land use 

planning processes and zoning ordinances. 

• Provide opportunities for community involvement early in project-level studies. 

• Hold design workshops in affected neighborhoods to develop understanding of vehicle, bicycle, 

and pedestrian linkages in order to preserve those linkages through use of grade-separated 

crossings and other measures. 

• Ensure that connectivity is maintained across the rail corridor (pedestrian/bicycle and vehicular 

crossings) where necessary to maintain neighborhood integrity. 

• Develop facility, landscape, and public art design standards for HST corridors that reflect the 

character of adjacent affected neighborhoods. 

• Maintain a high level of visual quality of HST facilities in neighborhood areas by implementing 

such measures as visual buffers, trees and other landscaping, architectural design, and public 

artwork. 

• Establish requirements for station area plans and opportunities for transit-oriented development 

(see Chapter 6). 

B. COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS 

Alignment alternatives would be further refined in consultation with local governments and planning 

agencies, with consideration given to minimizing barrier effects in order to maintain neighborhood 

integrity. Potential mitigation strategies to reduce the effects of any new barriers would be 

considered at the project-level environmental review and could include grade separating planned rail 

lines and streets, new pedestrian crossings, new cross-connection points, improved visual quality of 

project facilities, and traffic management plans to maintain access during and after construction. 

In addition, mitigation measures would also be developed for temporary construction-related impacts 

on any nearby neighborhoods and communities. Potential mitigation strategies to alleviate or 

minimize community cohesion related impacts associated with the alignment alternatives might 

include, but are not limited to, the following: 

• Provide opportunities for community involvement early in project-level studies. 

• Hold design workshops within each affected neighborhood to develop an understanding of key 

vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian linkages across the rail corridor so that those linkages can be 

preserved, including the use of grade-separated crossings. 

• Develop facility, landscape, and public art design standards for project corridors that reflect the 

character of adjacent affected neighborhoods. 

• Ensure that connectivity (pedestrian/bicycle and vehicular crossings) across the rail corridor is 

maintained where necessary to maintain neighborhood integrity. 

• Develop a traffic management plan to reduce barrier effects during construction. 

• To the extent feasible, maintain connectivity during construction. 

• Maintain high level of visual quality of project facilities in neighborhood areas by implementing 

such measures as visual buffers, trees and other landscaping, architectural design, and public 

artwork. 

C. PROPERTY 

Potential land use displacement and property acquisition (temporary use and/or permanent and 

nonresidential property) are expected to be avoided to the extent feasible by considering further 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.7 Land Use and Planning 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.7-44

alignment alternative adjustments and design changes in the future at the project level. In addition, 

analysis at the project level would take into account relocation assistance in accordance with the 

Federal Uniform Relocation and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970. Design strategies 

would be developed for application at the project level to avoid or minimize the temporary or 

permanent acquisition of residential and nonresidential property. 

Access modifications, including possible over or under crossings, may be needed to mitigate impacts 

arising from partial property acquisitions that result in division of a farm or other land use. 

D. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

Overall, the HST system is not expected to result in disproportionate adverse effects to minority or 

low-income populations in the Bay Area to Central Valley study region. Additional consideration of 

environmental justice issues would occur during project-level review, which would include 

consideration of potential localized impacts and potential benefits to and enhancements for 

communities along potential HST Alignment Alternatives. Project-level review would also include 

consideration of detailed mitigation measures, including mitigation for temporary construction-related 

impacts. Project-level review would also include outreach to potentially affected communities as part 

of the public review process. 

Potential mitigation strategies to alleviate or minimize land use related impacts associated with the 

HST Alignment Alternatives might include, but are not limited to, the following. 

• EO 12898 requires federal agencies to ensure effective public participation and access to 

information. Consequently, a key component of compliance with EO 12898 is outreach to the 

potentially affected minority and/or low-income population to discover issues of importance that 

otherwise may not be apparent. Outreach to affected communities will be conducted as part of 

the decision-making process, and this outreach will be documented. 

• In addition to examining all impacts, specific attention will be given to the permanent impact 

categories that are commonly of concern for this type of project and to those that previously 

have been identified as being of concern. These include: 

− Air quality 

− Noise and vibration 

− Public health 

− Visual/aesthetics 

− Parklands 

− Relocation 

The above mitigation strategies are expected to reduce the land use compatibility impacts of the 

alignment alternatives to a less-than-significant level. Additional environmental assessment would 

allow a more precise evaluation in the second-tier, project-level environmental analyses. 

3.7.6 Subsequent Analysis 

Subsequent environmental evaluations and project-level review of proposed segments and facilities would 

address the need for the following studies. 

• Land use studies for specific alignment alternatives and station location option areas potentially 

impacted, including evaluation of potential land use conversion, potential growth, and potential 

community benefits. 

• Review of localized potential environmental justice issues. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.7 Land Use and Planning 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.7-45

• Relocation impact analysis for potentially displaced housing and businesses. 

• Pedestrian and vehicular circulation studies. 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.8-1

3.8 Agricultural Lands 

This section describes the agricultural lands in the San Francisco Bay Area to Central Valley study area 

and identifies the potential for impacts on agricultural lands that would be caused by the various HST 

Alignment Alternatives1

. This programmatic evaluation focuses on the potential direct conversion of 

agricultural lands to nonagricultural uses from the HST Alignment Alternatives and the potential for the 

indirect conversion of agricultural lands to nonagricultural uses as a result of segmentation of agricultural 

lands or severing of access to agricultural lands so that the remaining parcels are not economically 

suitable for farmland use. The potential for conflicts with federal, state, and local programs and policies 

related to farmland preservation, beyond the impacts of conversion, requires a level of detail beyond that 

available for this program-level analysis; this detailed analysis will be conducted in project-level 

environmental documents. The potential for impacts on agricultural land as a result of growth is 

discussed in Chapter 5, “Economic Growth and Related Impacts.” 

3.8.1 Regulatory Requirements and Methods of Evaluation 

A. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 

Many regulatory and nonregulatory strategies are used to discourage and prevent farmland 

conversion (i.e., the conversion of land in agricultural use to nonagricultural use). 

Federal Farmland Protection Policy Act 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 

oversees the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) (7 U.S. Code [USC] § 4201 et seq.; see also 7 

Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 658). The FPPA (a subtitle of the 1981 Farm Bill) is national 

legislation designed to protect farmland. The FPPA states its purpose is to “minimize the extent to 

which federal programs contribute to the unnecessary conversion of farmland to nonagricultural 

uses.” The FPPA applies to projects and programs that are sponsored or financed in whole or in part 

by the federal government. The FPPA does not apply to private construction projects subject to 

federal permitting and licensing, projects planned and completed without assistance from a federal 

agency, federal projects related to national defense during a national emergency, or projects 

proposed on land already committed to urban development. The FPPA spells out requirements to 

ensure federal programs to the extent practical are compatible with state, local, and private programs 

and policies to protect farmland and calls for the use of the Land Evaluation and Site Assessment 

(LESA) system to aid in analysis. Because the Authority may ultimately seek some federal funding, 

the FPPA is considered in this document.

Williamson Act and Farmland Security Zone Contracts

The California Land Conservation Act (Government Code §51200 et seq.) of 1965, commonly known 

as the Williamson Act, provides a tax incentive for the voluntary enrollment of agricultural and open 

space lands in contracts between local government and landowners. The contract enforceably 

restricts the land to agricultural and open space uses and compatible uses defined in state law and 

local ordinances. An agricultural preserve, which is established by local government, defines the 

boundary of an area within which a city or county will enter into contracts with landowners. Local 

governments calculate the property tax assessment based on the actual use of the land instead of 

the potential land value assuming full development. 

Williamson Act contracts are for 10 years and longer. The contract is automatically renewed each 

year, maintaining a constant, 10-year contract, unless the landowner or local government files to 

 

1

 See Section 3.0, Introduction, for an explanation of how this section fits together with the HST Network Alternatives presented in 

Chapter 7, as well as for an overview of the information presented in the other chapters. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.8 Agricultural Lands 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.8-2

initiate nonrenewal. Should that occur, the Williamson Act would terminate 10 years after the filing 

of a notice of nonrenewal. Only a landowner can petition for a contract cancellation. Tentative 

contract cancellations can be approved only after a local government makes specific findings and 

determines the cancellation fee to be paid by the landowner. 

The State of California has the following policies regarding public acquisition of and locating public 

improvements on lands in agricultural preserves and on lands under Williamson Act contracts 

(Government Code §51290–51295): 

• State policy is to avoid locating federal, state, or local public improvements and improvements of 

public utilities, and the acquisition of land, in agricultural preserves. 

• State policy is to locate public improvements that are in agricultural preserves on land other than 

land under Williamson Act contract. 

• State policy is that any agency or entity proposing to locate such an improvement, in considering 

the relative costs of parcels of land and the development of improvements, give consideration to 

the value to the public of land, particularly prime agricultural land, in an agricultural preserve. 

Since 1998, another option in the Williamson Act Program has been established with the creation of 

Farmland Security Zone contracts. A Farmland Security Zone is an area created within an agricultural 

preserve by a board of supervisors upon the request of a landowner or group of landowners. 

Farmland Security Zone contracts offer landowners greater property tax reduction and have a 

minimum initial term of 20 years. Like Williamson Act contracts, Farmland Security Zone contracts 

renew annually unless a notice of nonrenewal is filed. 

Potential cancellation of Williamson Act and Farmland Security Zone contracts would be addressed in 

subsequent project-level documents. 

Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program

The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) is the only statewide land use inventory 

conducted on a regular basis. The California Department of Conservation administers the FMMP, 

under which it maintains an automated map and database system to record changes in the use of 

agricultural lands. Farmland under the FMMP is listed by category—Prime Farmland, Farmland of 

Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Local Importance. Information regarding 

locations of farmland by category is readily available, and the potential conversion of FMMP lands is 

addressed in this document. The farmland categories listed under the FMMP are described below. 

The categories are defined pursuant to USDA land inventory and monitoring criteria, as modified for 

California. 

Prime Farmland 

Prime Farmland is land with the best combination of physical and chemical features to sustain longterm production of agricultural crops. These lands have the soil quality, growing season, and 

moisture supply necessary to produce sustained high yields. Soil must meet the physical and 

chemical criteria determined by the NCRS. Prime Farmland must have been used for production of 

irrigated crops at some time during the 4 years prior to the mapping date by the FMMP. 

Farmland of Statewide Importance 

Farmland of Statewide Importance is similar to Prime Farmland but with minor differences, such as 

greater slopes or a lesser ability of the soil to store moisture. Farmland of Statewide Importance 

must have been used for production of irrigated crops at some time during the 4 years prior to the 

mapping date. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.8 Agricultural Lands 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.8-3

Unique Farmland 

Unique Farmland has lesser quality soils than Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance. 

Unique Farmland is used for the production of the state’s leading agricultural crops. These lands are 

usually irrigated but may include nonirrigated orchards or vineyards found in some climatic zones in 

California. Unique Farmland must have been used for crops at some time during the 4 years prior to 

the mapping date. 

Farmland of Local Importance 

Farmland of Local Importance is farmland that is important to the local agricultural community as 

determined by each county’s board of supervisors and local advisory committees. 

California Conservation Easements

Conservation easements are voluntarily established restrictions that are permanently attached to 

property deeds, with the general purpose of retaining land in its natural, open-space, agricultural, or 

other condition while preventing uses that are deemed inconsistent with the specific conservation 

purposes expressed in the easements. Agricultural conservation easements define conservation 

purposes that are tied to keeping land available for continued use as farmland. Such farmlands 

remain in private ownership, and the landowner retains all farmland use authority, but the farmland 

is restricted in its ability to be subdivided or used for nonagricultural purposes, such as urban uses. 

The California Farmland Conservancy Program (Public Resources Code §10200 et seq.) supports the 

voluntary granting of agricultural conservation easements from landowners to qualified nonprofit 

organizations, such as land trusts, as well as local governments. Potential impacts on conservation 

easements would be addressed in subsequent project-level documents. 

Local Policies and Regulations

Local jurisdictions (cities and counties) also have policies and regulations that protect agricultural 

resources or regulate farmland. These may include establishment of agricultural preserves or 

agricultural districts, policies protecting identified farmland, and agricultural zoning. Specific local 

policies are not addressed in this program-level analysis. Project-level farmland policy analysis would 

be addressed in subsequent project-level documents. 

B. METHOD OF EVALUATION OF IMPACTS 

Method of Determining Study Areas

The study area for the proposed HST Alignment Alternatives was developed to address two different 

potential improvement scenarios. The first scenario was for potential alignment alternatives adjacent 

to existing rail corridors. In these cases, the study area extended 100 ft (30 m) from the rail right-ofway on the side that was selected for study based on conceptual engineering studies. The same 

method would also be used for alignments adjacent to existing highway corridors. This method 

allows the development of an estimate of the area that could be needed for a proposed HST system 

and an estimate within that area of the land now in agricultural use that would potentially be 

affected. This approach is illustrated below in Figure 3.8-1a. 

The case shown in Figure 3.8-1a represents a conservative approach to quantifying potential impacts 

because it would be possible to fit the HST within a 50-foot (15-meter) right-of-way in areas of high 

agricultural impact. Moreover, it may be possible to fit the entire HST line into existing rail corridors, 

given agreements with private rail operators. To the extent this could be done, it would reduce the 

potential impacts of the proposed alternatives to a nearly negligible level of impact on agricultural 

lands in existing railway areas. 

The second scenario was developed for new alignments in undeveloped areas (i.e., areas outside the 

urban/metropolitan area that do not have existing rail rights-of-way) that are separate from existing 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.8 Agricultural Lands 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.8-4

rail/highway corridors. In this scenario, the study area would extend 50 ft (15 m) on both sides of 

the proposed rail centerline, for a total width of 100 ft (30 m). This method is a conservative 

approach because it would be possible to fit the HST line within a 50-foot (15-meter) right-of-way in 

constrained areas. This approach is illustrated in Figure 3.8-1b. 

Construction practices for the HST have not been determined at this program level, so a detailed 

analysis of construction-related impacts on agricultural lands cannot be addressed until the projectlevel documents. However, for this program document, it is assumed that construction impacts 

generally would be within the 100-foot buffer identified for the long-term operational impacts. 

To ascertain the possible extent of potential farmland impacts, the study areas for the proposed 

alignment alternatives were overlaid atop the FMMP farmland GIS data (California Division of Land 

Resource Protection 2006). GIS was used to calculate the acreage of farmland that potentially would 

be converted for the proposed alignment alternatives and improvements in the study area for each 

FMMP category. This analysis was used to calculate potential impacts on farmlands and accounts for 

proposed improvements that would expand existing transportation corridors, potential alignments 

that would be adjacent to existing transportation corridors, and potential alignments that would 

traverse undeveloped areas. The station facilities that would be included in the proposed alignment 

alternatives are assumed to be located primarily in the study areas considered. HST Alignment 

Alternatives have been ranked as having the least potential impacts on agricultural land (LPI) or the 

greatest potential impacts on agricultural land (GPI). Alignment alternatives other than the LPI and 

GPI would be expected to have levels of impact between those of the LPI and GPI. 

For purposes of this discussion, farmland severance is defined as the division of one farmland parcel 

into two or more areas of farmland operation by the placement of a barrier (in this case rail line) 

through the parcel. Potential severance locations are discussed qualitatively, not quantitatively, in 

this program-level document. A qualitative discussion of farmland severance was based on aerial 

photographs to provide a general assessment of the level of potential farmland severance for the 

various alignments. Because quantification estimates from aerial photographs may lead to 

misleading results, the qualitative assessment of farmland severance was conducted. Parcel-specific 

information is not considered in this program-level analysis. Project-level farmland conversion and 

severance impacts that are determined to be significant adverse impacts would be addressed in 

subsequent project-level documents. 

C. CEQA SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA 

Under CEQA, impacts on agricultural resources are considered significant if the project would: 

• Convert Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Unique Farmland, as shown on 

the maps prepared pursuant to the FMMP of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural 

use. 

• Sever farmland by the placement of barriers in a manner that impedes access to that land and 

could result in conversion of farmland to a nonagricultural use. 

3.8.2 Affected Environment 

A. STUDY AREA DEFINED 

The study area for the proposed HST Alignment Alternatives is the 100-foot (30-meter) corridor, as 

described above in Methods of Evaluation of Impacts. 

B. GENERAL DISCUSSION OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS 

California is the leading agricultural producer and exporter in the United States. In 2004, California’s 

agricultural production reached $31.8 billion, accounting for approximately 13% of the nation’s gross 

cash receipts. The most recent statistics (2004) indicate that California has approximately 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Figure 3.8-1

Farmland Study Area

100 ft 

(30 m)

3.8-1a. In Existing Railway Areas 

3.8-1b. In Undeveloped Areas 

100 ft Study Area (30 m)

Existing Rail Right-of-Way Area Not 

Included in 

GIS Analysis

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.8 Agricultural Lands 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.8-5

26.7 million ac (10.8 hectares [ha]) of land in farms, has approximately 77,000 farms (less than 4% 

of the nation’s total), and produces more than 350 different crop types. Although California has 

many areas of farmland production, its largest area of agricultural production is the Central Valley. 

Six of the top ten California agricultural counties in 2001 were located in the Central Valley. 

(California Department of Food and Agriculture 2005.) 

Urban growth frequently results in the conversion of agricultural land to nonagricultural uses. 

According to an estimate in a May 2001 report by the University of California Agricultural Issues 

Center, California lost approximately 497,000 ac (201,000 ha) of farmland to urbanization in the 

decade between 1988 and 1998, a loss rate of approximately 49,700 ac (20,100 ha) per year 

(Kuminoff et al. 2001). 

C. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES IN THE BAY AREA TO CENTRAL VALLEY REGION 

Land identified as Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, and 

Farmland of Local Importance occurs throughout the study area except in the heavily urbanized areas 

and the mountainous areas. The largest amount of agricultural land occurs in the Central Valley. 

The amount of farmland in each alignment alternative is identified below. 

3.8.3 Environmental Consequences 

A. NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE 

The No Project Alternative assumes that, in addition to existing conditions, additional transportation 

improvements would be developed and operational by 2030. The transportation improvements 

include projects that are programmed or funded to 2030 (Chapter 2). 

It was not possible as part of this study to identify or quantify the amount of farmland that might be 

affected by the transportation improvements in the No Project Alternative. For existing 

transportation facilities, it is assumed that conversion of agricultural lands was previously addressed 

in the environmental documents for those projects, and only small additional or increased impacts 

are expected from the future transportation improvement included in the No Project Alternative. 

Thus, no additional impacts, beyond existing conditions are quantified under the No Project 

Alternative. In some cases, widening of existing corridors or similar improvements could convert 

additional farmland or could affect access to farmland. 

B. HIGH-SPEED TRAIN ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES 

Potential Conversion of Agricultural Land

Table 3.8-1 lists the amount of identified farmland for each HST corridor by alignment alternative and 

station location. This represents the potential for direct conversion of agricultural land to nonfarming 

uses (i.e., transportation uses). Figure 3.8-2 illustrates the farmland in relation to each alignment 

alternative. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.8 Agricultural Lands 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.8-6

Table 3.8-1. Farmland Summary Data Table for 

Alignment Alternatives and Station Location Option Comparisons 

Corridor 

Possible Alignment Segments 

Alignment 

Prime 

Farmland 

(acres) 

Farmland of 

Statewide 

Importance 

(acres) 

Unique 

Farmland 

(acres) 

Farmland of 

Local 

Importance 

(acres) 

San 

Francisco to 

San Jose: 

Caltrain 

1 of 1 San Francisco 

to Dumbarton 

0 0 0 0 

1 of 1 Dumbarton to 

San Jose 

0 0 0 0 

Station Location Options 

Transbay Transit Center 0 0 0 0 

4th and King (Caltrain) 0 0 0 0 

Millbrae/SFO 0 0 0 0 

Redwood City (Caltrain) 0 0 0 0 

Palo Alto (Caltrain) 0 0 0 0 

Oakland to 

San Jose: 

Niles/I-880 

1 of 2 West Oakland 

to Niles 

Junction 

0 0 0 0 

12th

Street/City 

Center to 

Niles Junction 

0 0 0 0 

1 of 2 Niles Junction 

to San Jose 

via Trimble 

6.4 0 0 0 

Niles Junction 

to San Jose 

via I-880 

6.4 0 0 0 

Station Location Options 

West Oakland/7th Street 0 0 0 0 

12th Street/City Center 0 0 0 0 

Coliseum/Airport 0 0 0 0 

Union City (BART) 0 0 0 0 

Fremont (Warm Springs) 0 0 0 0 

San Jose to 

Central 

Valley: 

Pacheco Pass 

1 of 1 Pacheco 176.0 56.2 0 8.8 

1 of 3 Henry Miller 

(UPRR 

Connection) 

128.3 75.6 39.5 22.0 

Henry Miller 

(BNSF 

Connection)

129.6 58.1 77.6 29.2 

GEA North 

 136.8 105.6 12.2 16.3 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Bay Area to 

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.8 Agricultural Lands 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.8-7

Corridor 

Possible Alignment Segments 

Alignment 

Prime 

Farmland 

(acres) 

Farmland of 

Statewide 

Importance 

(acres) 

Unique 

Farmland 

(acres) 

Farmland of 

Local 

Importance 

(acres) 

Station Location Options 

San Jose (Diridon) 0 0 0 0 

Morgan Hill (Caltrain) 0 0 0 0 

Gilroy (Caltrain) 0 0 0 0 

East Bay to 

Central 

Valley: 

Altamont 

Pass

1 of 4 I-680/ 

580/UPRR 

11.7 1.9 0 0 

I-580/ UPRR 12.1 0 0 0 

Patterson 

Pass/UPRR 

7.1 0 0 2.5 

UPRR 7.1 0 0 0 

1 of 4 Tracy 

Downtown 

(BNSF 

Connection) 

203.7 199.8 25.3 17.1 

Tracy ACE 

Station (BNSF 

Connection) 

162.1 206.8 17.2 55.5 

Tracy ACE 

Station (UPRR 

Connection) 

87.1 59.5 0 35.2 

Tracy 

Downtown 

(UPRR 

Connection) 

151.7 68.1 8.1 14.7 

1 of 1 East Bay 

Connections 

0 0 0 0 

Station Location Options 

Pleasanton (I-680/Bernal Rd) 0 0 0 0 

Pleasanton (BART) 0 0 0 0 

Livermore (Downtown) 0 0 0 0 

Livermore (I-580) 0 0 0 0 

Livermore (Greenville Road/UPRR) 0 0 0 0 

Livermore (Greenville Road/I-580) 0 0 0 0 

Tracy (Downtown) 0 0 0 0 

Tracy (ACE) 0 0 0 0 

San 

Francisco 

Bay 

Crossings 

1 of 2 Trans Bay 

Crossing—

Transbay 

Transit Center 

0 0 0 0 

Trans Bay 

Crossing—4th

& King 

0 0 0 0 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.8 Agricultural Lands 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.8-8

Corridor 

Possible Alignment Segments 

Alignment 

Prime 

Farmland 

(acres) 

Farmland of 

Statewide 

Importance 

(acres) 

Unique 

Farmland 

(acres) 

Farmland of 

Local 

Importance 

(acres) 

1 of 6 

Dumbarton 

(High Bridge) 

2.3 0 0 0 

Dumbarton 

(Low Bridge) 

2.3 0 0 0 

Dumbarton 

(Tube) 

2.3 0 0 0 

Fremont 

Central Park 

(High Bridge) 

0 0 0 0 

Fremont 

Central Park 

(Low Bridge) 

0 0 0 0 

Fremont 

Central Park 

(Tube) 

0 0 0 0 

Station Location Options 

Union City (Shinn) 0 0 0 0 

Central 

Valley 

1 of 6 

BNSF—UPRR 326.0 192.7 113.9 143.4 

BNSF 407.3 164.0 101.6 165.0 

UPRR N/S 268.9 161.0 67.3 37.4 

BNSF Castle 385.7 149.2 140.7 141.7 

UPRR—BNSF 

Castle 

331.4 117.3 91.9 81.5 

UPRR—BNSF 318.2 160.8 67.3 64.0 

Station Location Options 

Modesto (Downtown) 0 0 0 0 

Briggsmore (Amtrak) 0 0 0 0 

Merced (Downtown) 0 0 0 0 

Castle AFB 12.0 0 0 0 

The key findings of the farmland analysis by corridor and alignment alternatives are summarized 

below. For a complete summary of all potential agricultural land conversions by segment see Table 

3.8-A-1 in Appendix 3.8-A. 

San Francisco to San Jose Corridor: Caltrain 

• No potential impacts on farmland in any of the four farmland categories were identified because 

the area is already urbanized. 

− Station Location Options: No potential impacts on farmland at any of the station location 

options were identified in this corridor. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.8 Agricultural Lands 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.8-9

Oakland to San Jose Corridor: Niles/I-880 

• Niles/I-880 (West Oakland to Niles Junction) and Niles/I-880 (12th Street/City Center to Niles 

Junction): No potential impacts on farmland in any of the four farmland categories were 

identified for either alignment alternative because the area is already urbanized. 

• Niles/I-880 (Niles Junction to San Jose via Trimble) and Niles/I-880 (Niles Junction to San Jose 

via I-880): A total of 6.4 ac (2.60 ha) of Prime Farmland potentially would be converted under 

either alignment alternative. 

− Station Location Options: No potential impacts on farmland at any of the station location 

options were identified in this corridor. 

San Jose to Central Valley Corridor: Pacheco Pass 

• Pacheco: A combined total of 240.99 ac (97.53 ha) of Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide 

Importance, and Farmland of Local Importance potentially would be converted.

• Henry Miller and GEA North (Western Valley to BNSF/UPRR): The Henry Miller (BNSF 

Connection) Alignment Alternative is the GPI compared to the GEA North or Henry Miller (UPRR 

Connection) alignment alternatives. A combined total of 294.6 ac (119.21 ha) of farmland in all 

four farmland categories potentially would be converted with the Henry Miller (BNSF Connection) 

Alignment Alternative. The GEA North Alignment Alternative would have a combined total of 

270.9 ac (109.64 ha) of farmland in all four farmland categories that potentially would be 

converted and would have the most prime farmland potentially converted at approximately 137 

ac (55.38 ha) (by only a small amount). The Henry Miller (UPRR Connection) is the LPI and 

would have slightly less impact on farmlands, with a combined total of 265.3 ac (107.35 ha) in all 

four categories. 

− Station Location Options: No potential impacts on farmland at any of the station location 

options were identified in this corridor. 

East Bay to Central Valley Corridor: Altamont Pass 

• Niles to Altamont: GPI is I-680/580/UPRR. LPI is UPRR. Small amount of farmland potentially 

would be converted for Altamont Pass between Niles and Altamont because of terrain (13.6 ac 

[5.49 ha] of Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance for I-680/580/UPRR, 12.1 ac 

[4.91 ha] of Prime Farmland for I-580/UPRR, 9.5 ac [3.85 ha] of Prime Farmland and Farmland 

of Local Importance for Patterson Pass/UPRR, or 7.1 ac [2.85 ha] of Prime Farmland for UPRR).

• Tracy Downtown and ACE Station: GPI is the Tracy Downtown (BNSF Connection) Alignment 

Alternative with minimally greater impacts than the Tracy ACE Station (BNSF Connection) 

Alignment Alternative. A combined total of 445.9 ac (180.45 ha) of farmland in all four farmland 

categories potentially would be converted and of that, approximately 204 ac (82.56 ha) would be 

prime farmland, the highest of the alignment alternatives within this corridor. The Tracy ACE 

Station (BNSF) Connect would have just slightly less farmland potentially converted at 441.5 ac 

(178.69 ha). The Tracy ACE Station (UPRR Connection) Alignment Alternative is the LPI with 

181.7 ac (73.53 ha) (in all four categories) potentially converted, and the Tracy Downtown 

(UPRR Connection) Alignment Alternative would be just slightly higher with a potential to convert 

242.5 ac (98.16 ha) of farmland. 

• East Bay Connections: Neither of the East Bay Connection alignment alternatives would result in 

conversion of farmland. 

− Station Location Options: No potential impacts on farmland at any of the station location 

options in this corridor were identified. 

San Francisco Bay Crossings Corridor 

• Trans Bay Crossings: No potential impacts on farmland in any of the four farmland categories 

were identified because of the location (in a tunnel under the bay and in urbanized areas). 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.8 Agricultural Lands 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.8-10

• Dumbarton (High Bridge, Low Bridge, or Tube): GPI (with minimally greater impacts) (no 

differences between optional vertical alignments). A total of only 2.3 ac (0.94 ha) of Prime 

Farmland potentially would be converted with any alignment alternative because the area is 

already urbanized. 

• Fremont Central Park (High Bridge, Low Bridge, or Tube): LPI (with minimally fewer impacts) 

(no differences between optional vertical alignments). No potential impacts on farmland in any 

of the four farmland categories were identified because the area is already urbanized. 

− Station Location Options: No potential impacts on farmland at the station location option in 

this corridor were identified. 

Central Valley Corridor 

• BNSF—UPRR: A combined total of 775.9 ac (314.01 ha) of farmland in all four farmland 

categories potentially would be converted. 

• BNSF: GPI. A combined total of 837.8 ac (339.05 ha) of farmland in all four farmland categories 

potentially would be converted. 

• UPRR N/S: LPI. A combined total of 534.6 ac (216.35 ha) of farmland in all four farmland 

categories potentially would be converted. 

• BNSF Castle: A combined total of 817.3 ac (330.75 ha) of farmland in all four farmland 

categories potentially would be converted. 

• UPRR—BNSF Castle: A combined total of 622.1 ac (251.74 ha) of farmland in all four farmland 

categories would potentially be converted. 

• UPRR—-BNSF: A combined total of 610.3 ac (246.99 ha) of farmland in all four farmland 

categories potentially would be converted. 

− Station Location Options: The station location option at Castle AFB (associated with the BNSF 

Castle and UPRR—BNSF Castle Alignments) has the potential to affect 12.0 ac (4.85 ha) of 

Prime Farmland. The other station location options in this corridor would not result in any 

impacts on farmland. 

Potential Farmland Severance

Farmland severance, or the division of one farmland parcel into two or more areas of operation by 

the placement of a barrier (in this case rail line) through the parcel, would potentially occur with the 

project in some locations. Potential severance locations would be limited, however, because most of 

the alignment alternatives follow existing transportation corridors. The East Bay to Central Valley 

alignment alternatives, including the Tracy Downtown (BNSF Connection), Tracy ACE Station (BNSF 

Connection), Tracy Downtown (UPRR Connection), and Tracy ACE Station (UPRR Connection) 

alignment alternatives, each would have some potential for farmland severance impacts, particularly 

where these alignment alternatives connect to the Central Valley alignment alternatives near Lathrop 

and Manteca. The San Jose to Central Valley alignment alternatives, including the Pacheco and GEA 

North alignment alternatives, each of which includes significant amounts of agricultural lands, 

generally would not follow existing railroads or roadway rights-of-way, so the potential for severance 

impacts is greatest for these alignments. The Henry Miller alignment alternatives are generally 

adjacent to Henry Miller Road but would still have the potential for farmland severance on the 

western and eastern ends of the alignments. For other alignment alternatives, the addition of an 

alignment alternative in or adjacent to existing rail or roadway corridors still could lead to limited 

severance of farmland as a result of greater restrictions on crossing of the corridor. 

Parcel-specific information was not considered in this program-level analysis. Project-level farmland 

severance impacts would be addressed in subsequent project-level documents. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.8 Agricultural Lands 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.8-11

Potential Conflict with Farmland Programs and Policies 

The level of detail required for the LESA evaluation under the federal FPPA is beyond that available 

for this program-level analysis. This assessment will be required during preparation of project-level 

environmental documents. The parcel-level detail required to assess the conflict of alignments with 

lands covered by Williamson Act or Farmland Security Zone contracts is also beyond that available for 

this program-level analysis. Normally, converting land covered by these contracts would result in tax 

penalties. However, because the land would be converted to a public use, the penalties would not be 

applicable. Project-level environmental documents would examine whether cancellation of any such 

contracts, which were developed to protect farmland from conversion, has the potential to lead to 

further conversion of farmland to nonagricultural use. Project-level environmental documents also 

would examine any conflicts that alignments may have with local government policies that protect 

agricultural resources or regulate farmland. 

3.8.4 Role of Design Practices in Avoiding and Minimizing Effects 

The strategy beginning early in the conceptual design stage of the HST system was to avoid farmland 

wherever feasible. Throughout the initial screening of alternatives, a number of potential alignments 

were eliminated because of the high potential for farmland impacts, as well as other impacts (e.g., 

potential new alignments in the foothills of the Central Valley). Where potential impacts on farmland 

would occur, the effort would focus on reducing the potential impact. Potential systemwide impacts on 

farmland have been reduced by sharing existing rail rights-of-way wherever feasible or by placing the 

alignment immediately adjacent to them. The Authority is committed to using existing transportation 

corridors and rail lines in the proposed HST system to minimize the need to encroach on agricultural 

lands. 

Portions of some of the HST Alignment Alternatives would be either within or adjacent to a major existing 

transportation corridor (existing railroad or highway right-of-way). These existing transportation 

corridors, along which the HST system would be placed, already have divided properties and agricultural 

lands. Moreover, portions of the alignment would be on an aerial structure or in a tunnel, allowing for 

vehicular or pedestrian access across the alignment. Some portions of the HST alignment alternatives 

would be in new at-grade rail corridors (not on an aerial structure and not in a tunnel) and not within or 

adjacent to an existing transportation right-of way, where there would be the potential to divide or sever 

properties. For the HST system, underpasses or overpasses would be constructed at reasonable intervals 

to provide property access, and/or appropriate severance payments would be made to the property 

owners whose land is severed. The Authority would work directly with landowners during the final design 

of the system regarding the location(s) for access passages (overpasses or underpasses) to allow 

adequate property access. 

To minimize the potential impact on agricultural lands, the HST right-of-way width potentially could be 

reduced to 50 ft (15 m) in constrained areas. In addition, the Authority is committed to pursuing 

agreements with existing owners/rail operators to place the HST alignment within existing rail rights-ofway, which would avoid or minimize potential impacts on agricultural resources. 

3.8.5 Mitigation Strategies and CEQA Significance Conclusions 

Based on the analysis above, and considering the design practices described in Section 3.8.4, each of the 

HST Alignment Alternatives would have a significant impact on agricultural lands. Some direct conversion 

of agricultural lands to transportation uses would be expected. This impact would not occur or would be 

very small in the urbanized corridors and would be greatest in the Central Valley corridor. The only 

station location option that would result in the conversion of agricultural land is the Castle AFB site. The 

HST Alignment Alternatives also may result in severance of agricultural parcels, which could indirectly 

contribute to agricultural land conversion. At this programmatic level of analysis, it is not possible to 

know precisely the location, extent, or particular characteristics of agricultural lands that would be 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.8 Agricultural Lands 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.8-12

involved or the precise impacts on those lands. The impact is therefore considered significant overall for 

each HST Alignment Alternative. 

Mitigation strategies, as well as the design practices discussed above, can be refined and applied at the 

project level to reduce this impact. In the decision documents for this program process, the Authority is 

expected to make a commitment to the acquisition of easements to protect prime farmland. For the 

direct conversion of agricultural land, these strategies would include consideration of the following: 

• Avoid farmland whenever feasible during the conceptual design stage of the project. 

• Reduce the potential for impacts by sharing existing rail rights-of-way where feasible or by aligning 

HST features immediately adjacent to existing rail rights-of-way. 

• Reduce the potential for impacts by reducing the HST right-of-way width to 50 ft in constrained 

areas. 

• Increase protection of existing important farmland by securing easements or participating in 

mitigation banks where appropriate. 

• Coordinate with and provide financial support to the California Farmland Conservancy Program to 

secure appropriate conservation easements on prime farmland. For those communities with HST 

stations, focus this financial support in proximity to areas where farmland conversion impacts are 

expected and where threats of farmland conversion are greatest. 

• Coordinate with private agricultural land trusts, local programs, mitigation banks, and Resource 

Conservation Districts to identify additional measures that are appropriate and feasible to limit 

important farmland conversion or provide further protection to existing important farmland. 

For the indirect conversion of agricultural land that may result from farmland severance, these strategies 

would include consideration of the following: 

• Avoid farmland whenever feasible during the conceptual design stage of the project. 

• Minimize severance of agricultural land by constructing underpasses and overpasses at reasonable 

intervals to provide property access. 

• Work with landowners during final design of the system to allow adequate property access. 

• Provide appropriate severance payments to landowners. 

The Authority would coordinate farmland mitigation efforts at the project level with other mitigation 

initiatives, such as the California Farmland Conservancy Program (California Public Resources Code 

section 10222 et seq.), which is managed by the California Department of Conservation. This program 

provides grant funding for the purchase of agricultural easements and grants for farmland policy and 

planning projects. The Authority would review what this program is doing and the areas in which it has 

identified needs for farmland preservation. During project-level review, where the co-lead agencies 

determine that farmland mitigation will be needed to address site-specific impacts from the HST system, 

one strategy may be to provide financial support for easements that further this existing conservation 

program. 

The feasibility of mitigation strategies would be evaluated further at the project-specific level and would 

depend on factors such as an assessment of the land under the state LESA model or other significance 

criteria, the number of voluntary participants in local or regional programs, and the cost of acquiring 

easements or other mitigation. Possible mitigation strategies for severance impacts could include 

alternative access, HST realignment, or over-crossings at select locations. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.8 Agricultural Lands 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.8-13

The Authority has established policies regarding the use of smart growth and transit-oriented 

development strategies for station areas (Chapter 6), which will help to avoid secondary growth impacts 

on agricultural lands. 

The above mitigation strategies are expected to substantially lessen or avoid impacts on agricultural lands 

in many circumstances. Sufficient information is not available at this programmatic level, however, to 

conclude with certainty that the above mitigation strategies will reduce impacts on agricultural lands to a 

less-than-significant level in all circumstances. This document therefore concludes that impacts on 

agricultural lands would remain significant, even with the application of mitigation strategies. Additional 

environmental assessment would allow a more precise evaluation in the second-tier project-level analysis. 

3.8.6 Subsequent Analysis 

As indicated earlier, the above analysis does not provide a parcel-specific potential impact analysis for 

farmland. Subsequent project-level analysis will address local issues once the potential alignment 

alternatives are defined in more detail. Subsequent project-level environmental documentation would 

include more detailed information on potential severance impacts and potential impacts on FMMP-listed 

farmland, farmland under Williamson Act contracts, and farmland easements. 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.9-1

3.9 Aesthetics and Visual Resources 

Visual resources are the natural and human-made features of a landscape that characterize its form, line, 

texture, and color. This section describes the existing landscape in the region and identifies potential 

impacts on visual resources for each HST Alignment Alternative related to the proposed addition of 

infrastructure in, or removal of infrastructure from, the existing landscape.1

 Infrastructure may include 

HST improvements/construction, tunnels, fences, noise walls, elevated viaducts and overpasses for 

railways, highways and pedestrians, catenaries,2

 and stations. This assessment evaluates the potential 

changes related to the introduction of the HST system to existing scenic landscapes, both during 

construction (addition of construction staging areas, site work, construction equipment, temporary 

barriers, fences, and temporary power poles) and operation. 

3.9.1 Regulatory Requirements and Methods of Evaluation 

A. REGULATORY 

There are no specific regulatory requirements or federal or state standards for aesthetics and visual 

resources. However, both federal and state environmental guidelines require addressing topics 

related to the visual environment. The most explicit guidance is in the CEQA environmental checklist, 

which requires that a project proponent identify whether a project would have a substantial adverse 

effect on a scenic vista; substantially damage scenic resources, including trees, rock outcroppings, 

and historical buildings within a state scenic highway; substantially degrade the existing visual 

character or quality of the site and its surroundings; or create a new source of substantial light or 

glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area (State CEQA Guidelines Appendix 

G Environmental Checklist Form 2001). The FRA Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts 

(FRA Docket No EP-1, Notice 5, May 26, 1999), under the topic of aesthetic environmental and scenic 

resources, states: “The EIS should identify any significant changes likely to occur in the natural 

landscape and in the developed environment.” Consideration of local community design guidelines 

would be part of a subsequent phase of analysis for project-specific environmental review when more 

detailed engineering and architectural information would be developed for proposed alternatives. 

Caltrans design standards would apply to state highway improvements. 

B. METHOD OF EVALUATION OF IMPACTS 

The analysis of aesthetic and visual resources for this Program EIR/EIS focuses on a broad 

comparison of potential impacts on visual resources (particularly scenic resources, areas of historic 

interest, and natural open space areas and significant ecological areas [SEAs]) along proposed HST 

Alignment Alternatives and around HST station location options. The potential impacts of each of 

these alternatives are evaluated against the existing conditions, as described in Section 3.9.2, 

Affected Environment.

Photo simulations have been prepared to illustrate the conceptual design of the facilities associated 

with the HST Alignment Alternatives for a set of typologies (or general descriptions) selected from 

each of the regions and representative of highly scenic landscapes most subject to potential major 

visual impacts. These simulations have been used to evaluate how the distinguishable (dominant) 

visual features (color, line, texture, form) that characterize the existing landscape would change if the 

alternative alignment or station location option were implemented. Of particular interest are 

locations where plans and profiles show elevated structures (overpasses) and tunnel portals or 

extensive cut or fill. Also addressed in the evaluation is the potential shadow effect of elevated 

 

1

 See Section 3.0, Introduction, for an explanation of how this section fits together with the HST Network Alternatives presented in 

Chapter 7, as well as for an overview of the information presented in the other chapters. 

2 Catenaries are the wires and support-pole system that deliver the power supply to the proposed HST system. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.9 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.9-2

structures and the light and glare effects of the proposed alignment alternatives. For the HST 

Alignment Alternatives, the linear feature of the overhead electric wires and poles to supply power to 

the train, and the fenced track and potential noise barriers, are considered in the evaluation. 

Potential changes to the dominant landscape features, or potential visual impacts, are described and 

ranked as high, medium, or low according to the potential extent of change to existing visual 

resources. Visual contrast rankings, or impact rankings, are defined as follows. 

• High visual impacts would be sustained if features of the alignment or station were obvious and 

began to dominate the landscape and detract from the existing landscape characteristics or 

scenic qualities. 

• Medium visual impacts would be sustained if features of the alignment or station were readily 

discernable but did not dominate the landscape or detract from existing dominant features. 

• Low visual impacts would be sustained if features of the alignment or station were consistent 

with the existing line, form, texture, and color of other elements in the landscape and did not 

stand out. 

• Shadow impact ranking would be high if the new (not existing) elevated structure were within 

75 ft (23 m) of residential or open space, natural areas, or parkland. 

• Beneficial visual impact would result if the alignment eliminated a dominant feature in the 

landscape that currently detracts from scenic qualities or blocks vistas. 

C. CEQA SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA 

Under CEQA, a project would have a significant impact if it would (a) have a substantial adverse 

effect on a scenic vista, (b) substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, 

trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway, (c) substantially 

degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings, or (d) create a new 

source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. 

Each corridor, alignment alternative, and station location option has been rated, as identified above, 

and a rating of high or medium can generally be considered as significant. 

3.9.2 Affected Environment 

A. STUDY AREA DEFINED 

For the No Project Alternative, the affected environment is divided into typologies along both sides of 

existing highway and rail corridors. Several of the HST Alignment Alternatives being evaluated are 

either within or adjacent to these existing highway or rail corridors and therefore potentially would 

affect many of the same landscapes. The study area for aesthetics and visual resources is defined as 

0.25 mi (0.40 km) from the centerline of proposed HST Alignment Alternatives and around station 

location options. However, where there are scenic viewing points or overlooks within 1 mi (2 km) of 

the HST Alignment Alternative, these scenic viewing points have been included in the study area. 

The distance range of up to 0.25 mi (0.40 km) from proposed alignment alternatives and station 

location options and up to 1 mi (2 km) from proposed alignment alternatives and facilities for scenic 

viewing points is considered the area where a change in landscape features would be most noticeable 

to viewers, and where newly introduced features could begin to dominate the visual character of the 

landscape. 

B. GENERAL DISCUSSION OF AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 

The region includes a number of distinct types of landscape typologies spread over a large 

geographic area, many of which are common among the regions. A typology of typical landscapes is 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.9 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.9-3

used to describe the aesthetic and visual resources in the study area. The typologies provide the 

baseline or existing conditions against which the analysis of potential change or visual impact for 

each of the proposed alternatives is evaluated. Photographs of highly scenic and typical landscapes 

in each of the five corridors are provided to illustrate the dominant line, form, color, and texture for 

that landscape typology. 

The landscape typologies discussed are urban mixed use, urban suburban, traditional small urban 

community, industrial use, rural agriculture, and natural open space and parks. 

Urban Mixed Use

The high-density urban mixed-use landscape typology consists of multifamily housing, high-rise office 

buildings, at-grade and elevated transportation systems (Caltrain, BART, VTA light rail, freight 

railways), street grids, and limited vegetation. This landscape typology characterizes the major 

metropolitan areas in the study area: San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose. An example of the 

urban mixed use landscape typology is shown in Figure 3.9-1. 

Urban Suburban

The urban suburban landscape typology consists of suburban areas of low-density development—

modern single-family houses, yards set back, trees and ornamental landscaping—located around 

more densely developed metropolitan areas. This typology also includes commercial, retail, and 

office structures and infrastructure such as roads, highways, overpasses, underpasses, rail lines, and 

utilities. Examples include South San Jose, Mountain View, Fremont, Hayward, Livermore, Tracy, and 

Merced. An example of the urban suburban landscape typology is shown in Figure 3.9-2. 

Traditional Small Urban Community

The traditional small urban community landscape typology is characterized by long-established rural 

communities—older buildings and historic architecture two to three stories high, with mature street 

trees—along existing highways or rail corridors. This typology comprises historic or early post-World 

War II residential neighborhoods characterized by small- to mid-size houses on small lots with narrow 

streets and retail, commercial, and institutional mixed uses along arterial streets. Examples include 

Morgan Hill, Gilroy, San Mateo, Pleasanton, and Palo Alto. An example of the traditional small urban 

community typology is shown in Figure 3.9-3. 

Industrial Use

The industrial use landscape typology features industrial complexes with structures and warehouses 

of widely varied areas, sizes, and scales, and includes freight tracks and rail yards, transmission 

towers, substations, and utility lines. This typology typically is found along existing rail corridors or 

major highways. An example of the industrial landscape typology is shown in Figure 3.9-4. 

Rural Agricultural

Broad, open agricultural fields with or without fences, along with barns, silos, and other farm 

structures, farm equipment, isolated farm houses, and low-density rural commercial strips typify the 

rural agricultural landscape typology. The horizontal topography is characterized by crop fields, farm 

roads, fence and pole lines, and wind breaks, punctuated by barns, houses, sheds, water towers, and 

other agriculture-related structures. This landscape typography is typical of the Central Valley region. 

An example of the rural agricultural landscape typology is shown in Figure 3.9-5. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.9 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.9-4

Natural Open Space and Parks

Undeveloped natural areas such as coastal lagoons, forested mountains, mountain lakes and streams, 

rolling hills with woodlands and grasslands, and forested ridges and valleys with lush vegetation form 

the dominant visual features of these landscape typologies. These landscapes typologies are typically 

scenic with high aesthetic qualities. Examples include the Pacheco Pass, Altamont Pass, Central 

Merced County, and Niles Canyon. An example of the natural open space and parks typology is 

shown in Figure 3.9-6. 

C. AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES IN THE BAY AREA TO CENTRAL VALLEY REGION 

San Francisco to San Jose

Starting from San Francisco, the landscapes along the Caltrain Corridor are typically urban mixed use 

or industrial, with stretches of urban suburban residential and commercial landscapes. The existing 

nonelectric rail tracks and stations along the Caltrain Corridor are one of a number of dominant linear 

features in the landscape between San Francisco and San Jose. Views of the Bay are part of the 

aesthetic landscape experience along some portions of the Caltrain Corridor near the cities of 

Brisbane and South San Francisco. Views of the hills along the peninsula are scattered along the line. 

Views of the skyline of San Francisco and the San Francisco Bay are visible from the Caltrain Corridor 

approaching the city. In many locations, the line runs behind businesses and buildings that visually 

shield the line from the surrounding community. Views of the Caltrain tracks are visible from several 

local parks and from San Bruno Mountain hiking trails; however, the tracks are not a dominant visual 

feature in these landscapes (the multiple-lane freeways and bridges are dominant). 

Oakland to San Jose

Starting from Oakland, the landscapes along the corridor are typically urban mixed use or industrial, 

with stretches of urban suburban residential and commercial landscapes. The mostly elevated BART 

tracks are dominant linear features in the landscape between Oakland and Fremont, along with the 

two UPRR corridors. South of Fremont, the corridor is dominated by the I-880 freeway as it passes 

through commercial landscapes. As the corridor approaches San Jose, alternate routings continue 

along I-880 or Montague Expressway, Trimble Road, and the UPRR corridor to reach the San Jose 

Diridon station location option. Both HST Alignment Alternatives traverse commercial landscapes and 

a portion of parkland. The corridor ends at the Diridon station location option in San Jose. Views 

from the line include the East Bay hills and Mission Peak, south of San Jose. The South Bay wetlands 

would be visible from the elevated portions along I-880. 

San Jose to Central Valley

This corridor traverses a variety of landscapes. Leaving San Jose, the landscape is a mix of urban 

suburban and industrial. The landscape transitions to rural agricultural and traditional small urban 

communities, with recurrence of urban suburban near Morgan Hill and Gilroy. As the line passes 

through San Benito County, the landscape is rural agricultural. Entering the valley leading to Pacheco 

Pass, paralleling SR 152, the landscape is open space. A series of tunnels brings the line to the edge 

of the Central Valley. Each alignment alternative in this corridor crosses the valley through a mix of 

rural agriculture and open space and parklands, and ends in the urban suburban landscape of 

Atwater and Merced. 

Views from the line include the Santa Cruz Mountains, Mount Hamilton, San Eligo Lagoon, Elephant 

Head, Pacheco Peak, San Luis Reservoir, and the Grasslands Ecological Area. The line would be 

visible from locations in Henry Coe State Park, San Luis Reservoir State Recreation Area, San Joaquin 

National Cemetery, Volta State Wildlife Area, Los Banos State Wildlife Area, Great Valley Grasslands 

State Park, and the Fremont Ford State Recreation Area. In these areas, the HST alignment 

alternative would constitute a new form in the landscape, a medium to high visual impact. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Figure 3.9-1

Urban Mixed Use Typology
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Figure 3.9-2

Urban Suburban Typology
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Figure 3.9-3

Traditional Small Urban Typology
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Figure 3.9-4

Industrial Typology
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Figure 3.9-5

Rural Agricultural Typology
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Figure 3.9-6

Natural Open Space and Parks Typology
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.9 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.9-5

East Bay to Central Valley

This corridor begins in the hills east of Fremont, where the HST Alignment Alternatives would all run 

in a tunnel through the Niles Canyon area. The alignment alternatives would emerge from the tunnel 

just west of Foothill Road and Arroyo de la Laguna and transition to an aerial structure. From here, 

there are several alignment alternatives. 

The first would join the UPRR, on which the ACE trains operate. The alignment alternative would 

cross through the communities of Pleasanton and Livermore, a mixed landscape of traditional small 

urban community, urban suburban, and natural open space, with some industrial on the far east side 

of Livermore. Another alignment alternative would follow I-680 and I-580 through an urban 

suburban and open space landscape. These alignment alternatives meet at the western base of the 

Altamont Pass. 

There are two alignment alternatives for the Livermore Valley. One goes through Altamont Pass and 

the other near Patterson Pass, which can be accessed only from the UPRR alignment. The two 

alignment alternatives meet west of I-580, west of Tracy. Across either pass, the landscape is open 

space, characterized by rolling hills dotted with wind turbines of all styles and sizes. As the hills 

descend into the Central Valley, the landscape is a mix of receding rural agriculture and industrial 

before it gives way to the urban suburban landscape of the city of Tracy. 

There are four alignment alternatives in the Tracy area. The Tracy Downtown alignment alternatives 

would follow the historic Southern Pacific Railroad through the urban suburban and traditional small 

urban community that is found around downtown Tracy. East of downtown Tracy, the landscape 

changes back to rural agricultural, where the alignment alternatives join the Tracy ACE alignment 

alternatives. The Tracy ACE alignment alternatives would skirt the south and east sides of the city, 

running along the boundary of the urban suburban landscape of Tracy and the rural agricultural 

outskirts. The Tracy alignment alternatives meet near Oakwood Lake, on the west side of Manteca. 

The Tracy alignment alternatives cross Manteca in the right-of-way of SR 120. If the UPRR alignment 

alternative were chosen between Stockton and Merced, the alignment alternatives would end at 

UPRR and SR 99. If the BNSF alignment alternative were chosen, the Tracy alignments would extend 

to Escalon, in the right-of-way of the proposed SR 120 freeway. 

Views from the corridor include the open space over the Altamont Pass and the riparian areas along 

the San Joaquin River. The line would be visible from the Pleasanton Ridge Regional Park, Shadow 

Cliffs Regional Park in Pleasanton, and along Bernal Creek. The HST alignment alternatives, when 

viewed from Pleasanton Ridge and Shadow Cliffs, would be a minimal visual impact, because the 

existing railways and highways would continue to be the dominant features. When viewed from 

Bernal Creek, the HST system would dominate because it would be on a structure close to the creek. 

San Francisco Bay Crossings

The landscape of the Transbay alignment alternatives varies. The majority is open space, in the form 

of San Francisco Bay and the abandoned runways and tarmac of the former Alameda Naval Air 

Station. The Port of Oakland, BNSF and UPRR rail yards, and surrounding support facilities are 

industrial. The developed areas of Oakland and San Francisco are urban mixed use, with higher 

concentrations of uses in San Francisco. 

The Dumbarton alignment alternatives begin in the urban suburban landscape of Redwood City and 

pass through an industrial landscape before entering the park and open space of the Don Edwards 

San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Area and San Francisco Bay. On the east side of the bay, the 

alignment alternatives cross the industrial and urban suburban landscape of Newark and mainly 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.9 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.9-6

residential urban suburban landscape of Fremont before meeting in the open space of the hills east 

of Fremont. 

Central Valley Alignment

The Central Valley corridor traverses landscapes that alternate between urban suburban and 

industrial near the cities and a mix of rural agricultural and traditional small urban communities in the 

smaller towns. Brief landscapes dominated by grain silos or other rail-industrial installations occur at 

times in the rural agricultural landscape. See Figure 3.9-7—Rail-Industrial Rural Landscape for an 

example of typical structures serving agriculture. 

Views from the rail lines in this corridor are limited because of the flat terrain. Short vistas of riparian 

area occur when passing rivers. The HST line would be visible from some locations in the downtown 

districts of the cities through which it passes. 

3.9.3 Environmental Consequences 

A. NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE 

The existing conditions in 2007, or existing landscapes, are used as the baseline and are assumed to 

be representative for the analysis of potential visual impacts of the HST Alignment Alternatives and 

stations. The highway projects approved and funded for construction by 2030 and included in the No 

Project Alternative are described in Chapter 2, “Alternatives.” These improvements or changes to the 

existing highways and airports are generally expansions or reconfigurations of existing facilities that 

would not result in substantial visual contrasts or changes to the dominant line, form, color, or 

texture characterizing the existing landscape condition. No significant visual impacts, shadow, or 

glare impacts have been identified for the changes between the existing conditions and No Project 

Alternative for this program-level analysis. As these projects advance, the project sponsors (not the 

Authority) may identify and address some localized visual impacts in separate environmental 

documentation. 

B. HIGH-SPEED TRAIN ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES 

The study area is divided into six corridors: San Francisco to San Jose, Oakland to San Jose, San 

Jose to Central Valley, East Bay to Central Valley, San Francisco Bay Crossings and Central Valley. 

Alignment alternatives and station location options within each corridor are discussed in the overall 

corridor description. Table 3.9-1 summarizes the visual impacts by alignment alternative and station 

location option (Appendix 3.9-A provides more detail). This section focuses on the anticipated longterm impacts of the HST Alignment Alternatives and station location options. A general review of the 

short-term impacts that would occur during project construction is provided at the end of this section. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Figure 3.9-7

Rail-Industrial Rural Landscape

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.9 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.9-7

Table 3.9.1. Visual Impacts Summary Data Table for 

Alignment Alternatives and Station Location Option Comparisons 

Corridor 

Possible Alignment 

Alignment Change 

Visual Impact 

Ranking 

Alignment 

Visual 

Impact 

Ranking 

San 

Francisco 

to 

San Jose: 

Caltrain 

1 of 1 San Francisco 

to Dumbarton 

Two additional tracks Low Low visual 

impact Pedestrian overcrossings at 

stations 

High visual impact 

Pedestrian undercrossings at 

stations 

Low 

Raised Caltrain right-of-way Low 

1 of 1 Dumbarton to 

San Jose 

Two additional tracks Low Low 

Pedestrian overcrossings at 

stations 

High 

Pedestrian undercrossings at 

stations 

Low 

Raised Caltrain right-of-way Low 

New two-track bridge next to 

historic San Francisquito Creek 

truss bridge 

Low 

Two additional tracks at El Palo 

Alto Redwood 

Low 

Elevated facilities at Diridon San 

Jose station 

Medium 

Station Location Options

Transbay Transit Center Underground facilities at station No 

4th and King (Caltrain) Underground facilities at station No 

Millbrae/SFO Additional two tracks west of 

existing tracks 

No 

Redwood City (Caltrain) Elevated four-track station Low 

Palo Alto (Caltrain) Additional track between 

existing tracks, one to the east 

of existing tracks, pedestrian 

underpasses 

Low 

Oakland to 

San Jose: 

Niles/I880 

1 of 2 West Oakland 

to Niles 

Junction 

Highway grade separations Low Low 

Elevated alignment Medium and 

shadowing impacts 

12th Street/City 

Center to Niles 

Junction 

Highway grade separations Low Low 

Elevated alignment Medium and 

shadowing impacts 

1 of 2 Niles Junction 

to San Jose via 

Elevated alignment adjacent to 

residential 

Medium and 

shadowing impacts 

Medium 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.9 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.9-8

Corridor 

Possible Alignment 

Alignment Change 

Visual Impact 

Ranking 

Alignment 

Visual 

Impact 

Ranking 

Trimble Elevated alignment along I-880 

freeway 

Low 

Elevated alignment along 

Montague and Trimble Road 

Low 

Elevated alignment near historic 

Santa Clara Depot and Tower 

Medium 

Elevated facilities at Diridon San 

Jose station 

Medium 

Niles Junction 

to San Jose via 

I-880 

Elevated alignment adjacent to 

residential 

Medium and 

shadowing impacts 

Medium 

Elevated alignment along I-880 

freeway 

Low 

Elevated facilities at Diridon San 

Jose station 

Medium 

Station Location Options

West Oakland/7th Street Underground station Low 

12th Street/City Center Underground station Low 

Coliseum/Airport At-grade station Low 

Union City (BART) At-grade station Low 

Fremont (Warm Springs) Elevated station Low 

San Jose 

to Central 

Valley: 

Pacheco 

Pass 

1 of 1 Pacheco Elevated facilities at Diridon San 

Jose station 

Medium Medium 

Elevated facilities south of 

Diridon station 

Low and shadowing 

impacts 

Highway grade separations Low 

Expansion of existing railway 

corridor along Monterey 

Highway 

Medium 

New transportation corridor 

between Gilroy and Pacheco 

Valley 

Medium 

Elevated crossing of SR 152 in 

Pacheco Valley 

High 

Cut and fill sections over 

Pacheco Pass 

Medium 

1 of 3 Henry Miller 

(UPRR 

Connection) 

Trench alignment near San 

Joaquin National Cemetery 

Medium Low 

Elevated crossing of I-5 Low 

Wetlands crossing Medium 

UPRR Connection Low 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.9 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.9-9

Corridor 

Possible Alignment 

Alignment Change 

Visual Impact 

Ranking 

Alignment 

Visual 

Impact 

Ranking 

Henry Miller 

(BNSF 

Connection)

Trench alignment near San 

Joaquin National Cemetery 

Medium Low 

Elevated crossing of I-5 Low 

Wetlands crossing Medium 

BNSF connection Low 

GEA North 

(UPRR 

Connection) 

New transportation corridor 

between Pacheco Pass and 

Gustine 

Medium Medium 

Elevated crossing of I-5 High 

Wetlands crossings Medium 

New transportation corridor 

connections to UPRR in Atwater 

Medium 

GEA North 

(BNSF 

Connection) 

New transportation corridor 

between Pacheco Pass and 

Gustine 

Medium Medium 

Elevated crossing of I-5 High 

Wetlands crossings Medium 

New transportation corridor 

connections to BNSF in Atwater 

Medium 

Station Location Options

San Jose (Diridon) Elevated concourse and 

platforms at San Jose Diridon 

station 

Medium 

Morgan Hill (Caltrain) Elevated station Medium 

Gilroy (Caltrain) Elevated station Medium 

East Bay 

to Central 

Valley: 

Altamont 

Pass

1 of 4 I-680/ 

580/UPRR 

Trench alignment from tunnel 

portal to I-680 

Low Medium 

Elevated alignment along I-680 Medium and 

shadowing impacts 

Elevated alignment through I680, I-580 interchange Medium 

Elevated approaches to station High 

Elevated crossing of I-580 Medium 

I-580/UPRR Trench alignment from tunnel 

portal to 

east of I-680 

Low Medium 

Elevated alignment along 

existing UPRR in Pleasanton 

Medium and 

shadowing impacts 

At-grade alignment along 

existing UPRR through 

Livermore 

Low 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.9 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.9-10

Corridor 

Possible Alignment 

Alignment Change 

Visual Impact 

Ranking 

Alignment 

Visual 

Impact 

Ranking 

Deep cut at Altamont Summit Medium 

Patterson 

Pass/UPRR 

Aerial alignment from tunnel 

portal to east of I-680 

High Low 

Elevated alignment along 

existing UPRR in Pleasanton 

Medium and 

shadowing impacts 

At-grade alignment along 

existing UPRR through 

Livermore 

Low 

Cut and fill across summit Low 

 UPRR Trench alignment from tunnel 

portal to east of I-680 

Low Medium 

Elevated alignment along 

existing UPRR in Pleasanton 

Medium and 

shadowing impacts 

At-grade alignment along 

existing UPRR through 

Livermore 

Low 

Deep cut and fill across summit Medium 

1 of 4 Tracy 

Downtown 

(BNSF 

Connection) 

New at-grade corridor from 

summit to I-580 

Low Low 

Elevated crossing of I-580 Medium 

At-grade alignment through 

Tracy 

Low 

At-grade alignment in median of 

SR 120 

Low 

New at-grade corridor from SR 

99 to BNSF 

Low 

Tracy ACE 

Station (BNSF 

Connection) 

New at-grade corridor from 

summit to I-580 

Low Low 

Elevated crossing of I-580 Medium 

At-grade alignment along UPRR Low 

At-grade alignment in median of 

SR 120 

Low 

New at-grade corridor from SR 

99 to BNSF 

Low 

Tracy ACE 

Station (UPRR 

Connection) 

New at-grade corridor from 

summit to I-580 

Low Low 

Elevated crossing of I-580 Medium 

At-grade alignment along UPRR Low 

At-grade alignment in median of 

SR 120 

Low 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.9 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.9-11

Corridor 

Possible Alignment 

Alignment Change 

Visual Impact 

Ranking 

Alignment 

Visual 

Impact 

Ranking 

Tracy 

Downtown 

(UPRR 

Connection) 

New at-grade corridor from 

summit to I-580 

Low Low 

Elevated crossing of I-580 Medium 

At-grade alignment through 

Tracy 

Low 

At-grade alignment in median of 

SR 120 

Low 

2 of 2 East Bay 

Connections 

Aerial across Niles Canyon Road 

and Alameda Creek 

Medium Medium 

Station Location Options 

Pleasanton (I-680/Bernal Rd) Elevated station Medium 

Pleasanton (BART) Elevated station High 

Livermore (Downtown) At-grade station Low 

Livermore (I-580) Elevated station High 

Livermore (Greenville Road/UPRR) At-grade station Low 

Livermore (Greenville Road/I-580) Elevated station Medium 

Tracy (Downtown) Elevated station Medium 

Tracy (ACE) Elevated station Medium 

San 

Francisco 

Bay 

Crossings

1 of 2 Trans Bay 

Crossing—

Transbay 

Transit Center 

Underground alignment No No 

Trans Bay 

Crossing—4th & 

King 

Underground alignment No No 

1 of 6 Dumbarton 

(High Bridge) 

High-level bridge Medium 

Medium impacts on 

Centerville alignment 

across Fremont 

Medium 

Dumbarton 

(Low Bridge) 

Low-level bridge Low 

Medium impacts on 

Don Edwards 

Preserve and 

Centerville 

alignment across 

Fremont 

Medium 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.9 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.9-12

Corridor 

Possible Alignment 

Alignment Change 

Visual Impact 

Ranking 

Alignment 

Visual 

Impact 

Ranking 

Dumbarton 

(Tube) 

Underground alignment No 

Medium impacts on 

Don Edwards 

Preserve and 

Centerville 

alignment across 

Fremont 

Medium 

Fremont 

Central Park 

(High Bridge) 

High-level bridge Medium 

Medium impacts on 

Don Edwards 

Preserve and 

through Newark 

Medium 

Fremont 

Central Park 

(Low Bridge) 

Low-level bridge Low 

Medium impacts on 

Don Edwards 

Preserve and 

through Newark 

Low 

Fremont 

Central Park 

(Tube) 

Underground alignment No 

Medium impacts on 

Don Edwards 

Preserve and 

through Newark 

Low 

Station Location Option

Union City (Shinn) Elevated station High 

Central 

Valley

1 of 6 BNSF—UPRR Elevated crossing of SR 4 

viaduct in downtown Stockton 

Medium Low 

Elevated crossing of SR 99 near 

French Camp 

Medium 

Elevated structure through 

Escalon 

Low 

Elevated structure through 

Riverbank 

Low 

Curve realignment at Tuolumne 

River 

High 

Curve realignment at Chowchilla 

River 

Low 

BNSF New alignment south of Lodi Low Low 

Elevated structure through 

Escalon 

Low 

Elevated structure through 

Riverbank 

Low 

Curve realignment at Tuolumne 

River 

High 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.9 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.9-13

Corridor 

Possible Alignment 

Alignment Change 

Visual Impact 

Ranking 

Alignment 

Visual 

Impact 

Ranking 

Curve realignment south of 

Merced 

Low 

Curve realignment at Chowchilla 

River 

Low 

UPRR N/S Elevated crossing of SR 4 

viaduct in downtown Stockton 

Medium Low 

Elevated crossing of SR 99 near 

French Camp 

Medium 

Elevated structure through 

downtown Manteca 

Low 

Curve realignment in Modesto Low 

Elevated structure through 

downtown Turlock 

Low 

Elevated structure through 

downtown Chowchilla 

Low 

BNSF Castle New alignment south of Lodi Low Low 

Elevated structure through 

Escalon 

Low 

Elevated structure through 

Riverbank 

Low 

Curve realignment at Tuolumne 

River 

High 

New alignment into Castle AFB Medium 

Curve realignment south of 

Merced 

Low 

Curve realignment at Chowchilla 

River 

Low 

UPRR—BNSF 

Castle 

Elevated crossing of SR 4 

viaduct in downtown Stockton 

Medium Low 

Elevated crossing of SR 99 near 

French Camp 

Medium 

Elevated structure through 

Escalon 

Low 

Elevated structure through 

Riverbank 

Low 

Curve realignment at Tuolumne 

River 

High 

New alignment into Castle AFB Medium 

Curve realignment at Chowchilla 

River 

Low 

UPRR—BNSF Elevated crossing of SR 4 

viaduct in downtown Stockton 

Medium Low 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.9 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.9-14

Corridor 

Possible Alignment 

Alignment Change 

Visual Impact 

Ranking 

Alignment 

Visual 

Impact 

Ranking 

Elevated Crossing of SR 99 near 

French Camp 

Medium 

Elevated structure through 

downtown Manteca 

Low 

Curve realignment in Modesto Low 

Elevated structure through 

downtown Turlock 

Low 

Curve realignment at Chowchilla 

River 

Low 

Station Location Options

Modesto (Downtown) At grade station No 

Briggsmore (Amtrak) At grade station No 

Merced (Downtown) At grade station Low 

Castle AFB At grade station No 

A discussion of these impacts organized by corridor follows. 

San Francisco to San Jose Corridor

This corridor runs from the Transbay Transit Center in San Francisco to Diridon station location 

option in San Jose. It contains two alignment alternatives: San Francisco to Dumbarton and 

Dumbarton to San Jose. 

Visual Impacts 

To accommodate HSTs, the Caltrain line would be expanded from two to four tracks. Currently, 

there are two sections of four-track mainline, as noted above, through portions of Brisbane and 

South San Francisco, and in Sunnyvale. In most locations, the addition of two tracks would be within 

the existing right-of-way and would have a low visual impact. In some cases, it would be necessary 

to remove mature trees along the line. New plantings can replace the removed trees to minimize the 

visual impact. Where the additional tracks necessitate widening overcrossings or placing the railway 

on retained fill, the new structures can be designed to complement the historic character of nearby 

structures, as has been done at the San Carlos station. 

The addition of the HST alignment alternative to the Caltrain Corridor also would require the full 

grade-separation of the railway. This means that all street and pedestrian crossings would go over or 

under the tracks. Some smaller crossings may be closed. In the locations where the railway is to be 

raised to pass over streets, there would be a visual impact from the raised embankment. A 

simulation of a raised section of railway is shown in Figure 3.9-8—Grade Separation at Burlingame 

Station. 

Additional passenger boarding platforms would be built for the HST at certain stations, and 

underpasses or overpasses would be necessary to eliminate passengers crossing the railway tracks at 

grade at all stations. These projects would alter the existing visual qualities of the Caltrain stations. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Figure 3.9-8a

Grade Separation at Burlingame Station
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Figure 3.9-8b

Grade Separation at Burlingame Station 

Project Simulation
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.9 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.9-15

In some cases, such as the San Carlos station, projects previously have been undertaken to improve 

the station platforms through grade separations. The San Carlos station project was designed to 

complement the historic details and materials of the existing station building. New grade-separated, 

four-track stations were completed recently on the Caltrain line at Bayshore and Lawrence. The 

Bayshore station uses a pedestrian overcrossing for the grade separation. Lawrence uses a 

pedestrian undercrossing. The visual impact of the overcrossing is high because it consists of two 

towers with an elevator and stairs connected by a bridge over the tracks. The undercrossing’s visual 

impact is low. These stations are representative of improvements that would be expected to be 

made to other stations along the line where the HST is not expected to stop. 

Historic Buildings, Neighborhoods, Landscapes 

Several stations on the Caltrain line are historic—the Millbrae (1907), Burlingame (1894), San Carlos 

(1888), Menlo Park (1867), Palo Alto (1941), Santa Clara station (1864) and tower (1920s), and San 

Jose Diridon (1935). The HST station location option in San Jose is addressed below in the San Jose 

to Central Valley corridor. The proposed HST alignment alternative would include stops at Millbrae, 

Redwood City or Palo Alto, San Jose, and the Transbay Transit Center and/or 4th and King in 

San Francisco. Many of the communities along the Caltrain corridor developed with construction of 

the railway. The result is that many of the main streets in these communities are oriented toward 

the Caltrain line. Introduction of two more tracks for HST, catenary, grade separations, and 

protective fencing and barriers would be visible to people on the downtown streets, but in most 

cases, the station buildings dominate the vista from downtowns toward the railway, blocking the 

visual impact of these changes on downtown vistas. In all cases except San Jose, the station 

building is on the west side of the railway. In all cases except San Jose, Palo Alto, and Redwood 

City, the downtown district is also to the west of the railway. This gives the station building the 

ability to mask the view of the railway tracks from most of the peninsula cities’ commercial districts, 

minimizing the visual impact of the HST. 

Millbrae is the terminus of BART in the West Bay and a stop served by almost all Caltrain services. It 

is the station where travelers transfer from Caltrain to BART to make the connection to the San 

Francisco International Airport. The introduction of HST to the Caltrain line would only reinforce the 

importance of the Millbrae station as a major regional station. The historic Millbrae station building is 

south of the existing BART/Caltrain station and currently home to the Millbrae Historical Society. 

The introduction of HST to the Caltrain system would require that the current two-track Caltrain 

configuration at the Millbrae station be expanded to four tracks. (A third track and platform are 

south of the existing station but do not carry through the station.) The additional tracks would be 

added to the west of the existing tracks, and a new outside boarding platform would be constructed; 

the existing shared BART-Caltrain platform would be lengthened to 1,400 ft (400 m). The addition of 

the two tracks would require relocation of the historic station. It is assumed that the relocation 

would keep the building close to the station complex. The station was relocated to its current 

location in 1980 as part of a road-widening project. The relocation of the building again should not 

cause a visual impact because the landscape is dominated by the Millbrae Avenue overcrossing and 

the existing Caltrain/BART station. 

Redwood City is a station location option. If the HST service continues south to San Jose, a choice 

would need to be made between Redwood City and Palo Alto for the HST station location. 

Regardless of the station location option decision, the line would be elevated through Redwood City 

and would be a major stop for Caltrain. Redwood City’s Downtown Precise Plan includes a rendering 

of a fully elevated station on its cover, indicating that the city is planning for the eventual elevation 

and expansion of the existing tracks. If the tracks are elevated in concert with the planned 

redevelopment of the area surrounding the station, the visual impact should be low because 

proposed buildings around the station would be much taller than the buildings there currently. See 

Figure 3.9-9—Future Caltrain Station, Redwood City Downtown Precise Plan. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.9 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.9-16

The Caltrain truss bridge over San Francisquito Creek, built in 1902, is the only through truss bridge 

on the line. The design of the bridge to carry the two new tracks over the creek should have a low 

visual impact because the dominant view to the bridge is from the adjacent roadways and 

bike/pedestrian bridge, and a new bridge could be designed to allow the existing truss bridge to 

remain the dominant form along the rail line. 

To the east of the Caltrain tracks, between Menlo Park and Palo Alto on the south bank of San 

Francisquito Creek, is a coast redwood called El Palo Alto. It is California Historical Landmark No. 2, 

recognized by the National Arborist Association and International Society of Arboriculture for its 

historical significance. It was a campsite for the Portola Expedition Party (1769), a gathering place 

for the Costanoan/Ohlone Indians, and used as a sighting tree by surveyors plotting out El Camino 

Real. It appears on the city of Palo Alto’s official seal and on the seal of Stanford University. The 

addition of two tracks to the west of the existing Caltrain tracks and the installation of poles and 

catenary for electrification should have a low visual impact on El Palo Alto because the 110-foot tree 

dominates the landscape. 

If HST service extends the length of the Caltrain line, Palo Alto would be a station location option. If 

this were the case, the existing configuration of two tracks with outside platforms would be replaced 

by a configuration of four tracks with twin island platforms, extending from the station building 

toward Alma Avenue on the east side. Underpasses to each side of the tracks would connect the 

platforms. Designing the platform canopies in an art-deco style complementary to the station 

building would help ensure that this expansion would have a low visual impact on the historic station 

building. 

Affected Views from State Scenic Highways 

Designated and eligible state scenic highways in the corridor include I-280 from its terminus near the 

4th and King Street station location option in San Francisco to I-880 in San Jose. The alignment is 

within 1 mi (2 km) of I-280 in the City of San Francisco and would be visible from the highway 

between the Cesar Chavez Street and US 101. The railway and highway pass through an industrial 

landscape in this area. The addition of two tracks to the existing Caltrain railway would have no 

impact on the visual quality experienced from I-280. 

Oakland to San Jose Corridor

This corridor runs from Oakland to Diridon station in San Jose. It contains four alignment 

alternatives, reflecting two alternate terminal sites in Oakland and two alternate routings between 

Milpitas and San Jose. The alignments are West Oakland to Niles Junction, 12th Street/City Center to 

Niles Junction, Niles Junction to San Jose via Trimble Road, and Niles Junction to San Jose via I-880. 

Visual Impacts 

In this corridor, the HST alignment alternatives would require a pair of dedicated tracks. Starting 

from the north, the alignment alternatives begin at grade along the I-880 freeway in west Oakland. 

The West Oakland alignment alternative descends into a tunnel near Seventh Street to travel toward 

an underground station adjacent to the West Oakland BART station. From there, it continues in 

tunnel past downtown Oakland, emerging along the UPRR corridor near 14th Avenue. The 12th

Street/City Center alignment alternative begins in the same location along I-880 in west Oakland, but 

runs north, descending into a tunnel crossing under west Oakland to downtown Oakland, where an 

underground station would be constructed beneath and perpendicular to the 12th Street BART 

station. The alignment would then continue in a tunnel to emerge along the UPRR corridor near 14th

Avenue. The elevated I-880 freeway dominates the landscape where the alignment alternative would 

be above grade. Elsewhere, the alignment alternative would be underground. Each station location 

option would require the construction of a station entrance above the underground station, but in 

either case, the visual impact of the building would be low. A west Oakland station location would be 

built adjacent to the elevated West Oakland BART station, where the elevated BART station would 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Figure 3.9-9

Future Caltrain Station, Redwood City 

Downtown Precise Plan

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.9 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.9-17

continue to be the dominant visual feature in the landscape. For the 12th Street alignment 

alternative, the station building would be set in the middle of Oakland’s downtown commercial 

district, characterized by visually dominant high-rise buildings. 

Between 14th Avenue in Oakland and Niles Junction, the two HST alignment alternatives would follow 

the same alignment, sharing right-of-way with the UPRR as it passes through industrial and urban 

suburban residential landscapes. The alignment alternatives would run outside the historic centers of 

cities along the corridor. Most of the communities along this corridor developed after the railway was 

built. In many residential areas, soundwalls already exist along the edges of the railroad right-ofway. The two additional tracks for an HST, with its associated infrastructure, would be hidden from 

many existing residential areas behind existing soundwalls, creating no new visual impact. In areas 

where new soundwalls are deemed appropriate, the new walls would continue a visual theme already 

present in the corridor. 

The addition of HST to this corridor would require the full grade-separation from streets and rail 

spurs off the UPRR. This means that all streets, pedestrian crossings, and rail spur tracks would go 

over or under the HST tracks. Some smaller road crossings may be closed and some spur tracks 

abandoned. In the locations where roadways are lowered to cross under the railway, there would be 

a low visual impact. A simulation of a roadway undercrossing of railway is shown in Figure 3.9-10—

Undercrossing at Fruitvale Avenue. 

Two intermediate stations are planned in the corridor. The Coliseum station location option would be 

built between the existing BART station and Oakland Coliseum Complex, vastly expanding the 

existing Coliseum station of the Capitol Corridor trains. Pedestrian access to the HST and Capitol 

Corridor platforms would be from an elevated concourse. The existing footbridge between the BART 

station and the Coliseum station would be expanded to serve as the concourse. This station location 

option would have a low visual impact because the Oakland Coliseum and Arena facilities would 

continue to dominate the landscape visually. 

A station location option is also planned adjacent to BART’s Union City station and the proposed 

Capitol Corridor station. The HST station would be located along the existing Capitol Corridor tracks, 

a few hundred feet east of the BART station. The HST station would be at grade, with two outside 

platforms and four tracks. The outer tracks would serve trains stopping at the station; the inner 

tracks would be used by express trains. The new station would have a low visual impact on the 

surrounding landscape. 

South of the station, a pair of tracks may diverge from the line, turn to the east, and enter a tunnel 

into Niles Canyon to connect to the Altamont alignment alternative in the East Bay to Central Valley 

corridor. Past this junction, the line would pass the historic town of Niles and transition to an 

elevated structure through the Niles Junction area. The elevated structure would have a low visual 

impact on the surrounding residential area and medium shadowing impacts before returning to an atgrade alignment. 

South of Lake Elizabeth and Paseo Padre Parkway in Fremont, the HST would transition to an 

elevated alignment above the UPRR and planned BART line. The elevated structure would be 

between 26 ft (7.9 m) and 50 ft (15.2 m) high. This would introduce a new elevated lineal element 

into the immediate landscape. The structure would have a medium visual impact on residential areas 

along the west side of the corridor, including shadow impacts, especially where the structure ascends 

to its maximum height to cross above highway overcrossings of the existing railway and planned 

BART line at Washington Boulevard and Auto Mall Parkway. 

Another potential HST station location option would be located adjacent to BART’s proposed Warm 

Springs station in Fremont. The station would consist of four tracks with two outside platforms. The 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.9 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.9-18

tracks and platforms would be elevated about 26 ft (7.9 m) above grade, with the platform shelter 

canopies extending to about 40 ft (12.1 m). The station would be more than 1,400 ft (400 m) long, 

with additional length at either end for the track fans (switches and trackwork) to allow the two-track 

mainline to split to four tracks. While this would be a large structure, it would not dominate the 

surrounding industrial landscape. The alignment would leave the UPRR/BART right-of-way near 

Mission Boulevard and enter the I-880 right-of-way, where it would remain on an elevated structure, 

in the median of the freeway. The elevated structure would be between 26 ft (7.9 m) and 50 ft 

(15.2 m), reaching the maximum when passing over highway overpasses. The aerial structure would 

be a dominant, compatible, linear feature along the freeway. The landscape along the freeway is 

predominantly industrial and commercial, with some residential on the east side in the city of 

Milpitas. While the aerial structure would be visible, the freeway would continue to dominate the 

landscape, resulting in a low visual impact. 

Where Montague Expressway intersects I-880, two alignment alternatives exist for the reminder of 

the corridor into Diridon station in San Jose. The Niles Junction to San Jose via I-880 alignment 

alternative continues elevated in the median of I-880 until near SR 87. Upon leaving the freeway 

right-of-way, the HST railway would descend into a tunnel beneath Columbus Park and then climb to 

enter Diridon station. The visual impact along the freeway would be similar to what was described 

above. 

The Niles Junction to San Jose via Trimble alignment alternative leaves the I-880 right-of-way and 

follows Montague Expressway and Trimble Road to the UPRR Coast Line and Caltrain line at the 

Santa Clara station. The landscape along this alignment alternative is industrial and commercial. 

The HST railway would be elevated above the median of Montague Expressway and Trimble Road 

and then descend to a tunnel from approximately Zanker Road to the Central Expressway. The line 

would ascend to an aerial structure in the UPRR right-of-way. The alignment alternative would 

remain on an aerial structure along the Caltrain line and into the Diridon San Jose station. 

The aerial alignment would introduce a new lineal form to the landscape, but it would complement 

the lineal form of the highways and associated landscaping, resulting in a low visual impact. The 

aerial alignment along the UPRR and Caltrain railways passes through an industrial landscape. The 

elevated HST would have a low visual impact, except where it passes the Santa Clara station (1864). 

This impact is discussed below. 

Historic Buildings, Neighborhoods, Landscapes 

The Santa Clara Caltrain station and tower were built in 1864 and the 1920s, respectively. The 

elevated structure would introduce a new dominant linear form behind the historic depot. The 

proposed HST line, should the Trimble alignment alternative be selected, would be between 26 ft 

(7.9 m) and 50 ft (15.2 m). While not dominating the landscape, the aerial structure would have a 

medium visual impact on the historic depot and tower and would also create shadow impacts. 

The HST station location option in San Jose is addressed below in the San Jose to Central Valley 

corridor. 

Affected Views from State Scenic Highways 

Designated and eligible state scenic highways in the corridor include I-680 in Alameda County. The 

proposed HST alignment alternative is within 1 mi (2 km) of I-680 near Mission Boulevard in south 

Fremont and would be visible from the highway in that location. The railway would pass through an 

industrial landscape in this area. The addition of two tracks above the existing railway would have a 

low impact on the visual quality experienced from I-680 because the HST structure would 

complement the lineal form of the existing railway. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Figure 3.9-10a

Undercrossing at Fruitvale Avenue
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Figure 3.9-10b

Undercrossing at Fruitvale Avenue 

Project Simulation
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.9 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.9-19

San Jose to Central Valley Corridor

This corridor extends from the Diridon station in San Jose to the Central Valley. From San Jose to 

Gilroy, the alignment follows the UPRR corridor. From Gilroy across the Pacheco Pass, it is generally 

in the vicinity of SR 152. Three alignment alternatives exist from the east side of Pacheco Pass: GEA 

North, Henry Miller BNSF Connection, and Henry Miller UPRR Connection. The GEA North runs north 

past the town of Gustine and then east across the valley to just west of the city of Atwater where it 

connects with the BNSF alignment alternative. The Henry Miller (UPRR Connection) and the Henry 

Miller (BNSF Connection) alignment alternatives share the same alignment for most of their length, 

running past the community of Santa Nella and parallel to Henry Miller Avenue to just west of the city 

of Chowchilla. The Henry Miller (UPRR Connection) splits west of Chowchilla to connect to the 

Central Valley UPRR N/S alignment alternative. The Henry Miller (BNSF Connection) passes south of 

the city of Chowchilla and splits to connect to the Central Valley HST BNSF alignment alternative. 

Visual Impacts 

Implementation of HST in this corridor would require a dedicated pair of tracks. The corridor begins 

at Diridon station in San Jose. The HST would be accommodated by building a concourse and up to 

six HST tracks and three platforms above the existing platforms. The proposed platforms for HST 

would be located at 45 ft (13.7 m) above grade. The platforms would extend more than 1,400 ft 

(400 m), with additional length at either end for the track fans (switches and trackwork to allow the 

two-track mainline to serve all six station tracks). A canopy covering the HST platforms would extend 

the building height to 70 ft (21 m). The City of San Jose is planning for an intensification of land 

uses in and around the Diridon station, so the expanded HST station would constitute a medium 

visual impact, given that it would be a much longer and taller structure than the existing station 

building but in a setting that is proposed to have many larger buildings developed in the area. 

The line would run on an elevated structure up to 45 ft (13.7 m) tall until it crosses I-280, where it 

would descend to a retained fill section alongside the existing UPRR and Caltrain’s Gilroy service. It 

would pass through a traditional small urban neighborhood before passing over SR 87 and ascending 

to an aerial alignment past the Tamien station. The retained fill and aerial sections would be a low 

visual impact on the surrounding landscape, creating shadow impacts on residential areas 

immediately adjacent to the right-of-way. 

Just north of Almaden Expressway, the line returns to an at-grade alignment alongside the UPRR as it 

passes through the urban suburban landscape of South San Jose. A view of the current 

Caltrain/UPRR railway as it runs alongside Monterey Highway is provided in Figure 3.9-11—

Caltrain/UPRR along Monterey Highway. The proposed configuration would continue all the way 

through Morgan Hill and Gilroy. New roadway grade separations would carry roadways either over or 

under the UPRR and HST tracks. Because the HST would be placed in an existing rail right-of-way, 

the visual impact would be low. 

The traditional small urban community landscapes south of the highly urbanized San Jose area and 

through the small rural towns of Morgan Hill and Gilroy are characterized by mixed residential, 

commercial, and institutional uses in early to mid–20th century contiguous buildings, with average 

heights of 2 to 3 stories, minimal setbacks from streets, mature landscaping, and pedestrian-oriented 

streetscapes. Dominant visual features are historic architecture, mature street trees, and the 

surrounding distant mountainous ridgelines. 

A station location option for the HST could be provided in either Morgan Hill or Gilroy. In either 

location, the station would consist of four tracks, two for non-stopping trains and two to serve 

outside platforms for stopping trains. At either location, Morgan Hill or the historic Gilroy station, the 

HST facilities would be elevated, and the visual impact would be medium. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.9 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.9-20

South of Gilroy, the HST parallels the UPRR until Carnadero Junction, where it leaves the rail right-ofway to cross the valley towards San Felipe. The landscape is rural agricultural as the line crosses the 

Pajaro River and Tequisquita Slough and passes near San Eligo Lagoon. In this landscape, the line 

has a medium visual impact, introducing a new transportation corridor to a rural agricultural area. 

The coastal valley landscape consists of flat or rolling landscapes ringed with low hills and mountains 

in the background. Dominant visual elements are vistas of agricultural bottomland and wetlands 

framed by background views of green hills, ridges, and mountains. 

At San Felipe, the line crosses SR 152 and enters a short tunnel to pass into the Pacheco Creek 

Valley. This is shown in Figure 3.9-12—HST Crossing South of Gilroy. Once in the Pacheco Creek 

Valley, the line runs north of SR 152 along a series of cuts and fills until passing over the highway 

near Bell station. 

The natural open space landscapes along SR 152 in Pacheco Creek Valley east of Gilroy are 

characterized by coastal mountains and mountain valley topography typified by rolling to steepsloped grassland with shrubs, clusters of oaks and other native tree species, and wooded 

bottomland. Much of this area is part of the Henry Coe State Park and Mount Hamilton Project Area 

of The Nature Conservancy (described in Section 3.15, Biological Resources and Wetlands), which is 

designed to preserve the rich natural habitats in a 780–sq mi (1255–sq- km) area of the Diablo 

Range. Small farms or ranches (in bottomlands), isolated roadside businesses (e.g., Casa de Fruta), 

and widely dispersed small communities characterize the landscape. 

A simulation of the crossing of SR 152 in the Pacheco Creek Valley is provided in Figure 3.9-13—HST 

Viaduct in Pacheco Creek Valley. South of the highway, the line would enter a series of tunnels and 

cut and fill sections, passing back to the north side of the highway in a cut just west of the pass. The 

line would curve north of the San Luis Reservoir and Cottonwood Bay, again partially in tunnels and 

partially on cut and fill sections. The visual impact of this section of the line over the pass varies 

from none where the line is in a tunnel, to a medium impact where there are deep cuts or fills, to a 

high impact where the line crosses above the highway on a viaduct. North of San Luis Reservoir, the 

line can diverge to one of three alignment alternatives: GEA North, Henry Miller (UPRR Connection), 

and Henry Miller (BNSF Connection). 

The GEA North alignment alternative would cross Romero Creek and enter a series of tunnels and cut 

and fill sections to reach the edge of the Central Valley near the Pat Brown Aqueduct and I-5. It 

would turn north on an embankment to pass around the town of Gustine. The landscape transitions 

from the parks and open space of the Pacheco Pass to the rural agriculture of the western Central 

Valley. This would have a high visual impact where it crosses I-5. It would introduce a new 

transportation infrastructure crossing from the hills to the valley on an embankment over the 

freeway. I-5 in this area is a designated state scenic highway. 

Passing west and north of Gustine, the line would turn toward the east and run north of SR 140. 

Landscape in this area is a mixture of rural agriculture and wetlands open space. The line passes 

near the Great Valley Grasslands State Park and the Fremont Ford State Recreation Area. It would 

cross wetlands on low-level elevated structures. The introduction of the HST to the open space and 

parklands would be a medium visual impact because the line would be low to the ground and blend 

with the horizontal landscape. 

The GEA North alignment alternative would continue across the rural agricultural landscape of the 

Central Valley to meet the Central Valley BNSF mainline between the communities of Atwater and 

Merced. As the line approaches the urbanized area, the landscape shifts to a mix of urban suburban 

and rural agricultural. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Figure 3.9-11

Caltrain/UPRR along Monterey Highway
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Figure 3.9-12a

HST Crossing South of Gilroy
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Figure 3.9-12b

HST Crossing South of Gilroy

Project Simulation
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Figure 3.9-13a

HST Viaduct in Pacheco Creek Valley
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Figure 3.9-13b

HST Viaduct in Pacheco Creek Valley 

Project Simulation

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.9 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.9-21

The GEA North alignment alternative would split south of Livingston and curve to the north, 

eventually parallel to Arena Way. The introduction of the railway to a new alignment across the 

agricultural landscape would have a low visual impact. Near the existing BNSF railway, the line would 

cross the Merced River on a new alignment. This new river crossing would have a medium visual 

impact to the riparian landscape along the river. 

Both the BNSF and UPRR Henry Miller alignment alternatives would run across the Central Valley just 

north of Henry Miller Avenue. The line would exit the hills east of Pacheco Pass and follow Romero 

Creek. This takes the line past the San Joaquin National Cemetery in a trench, where the line would 

have a medium visual impact, introducing a major transportation facility to an open landscape 

designated for reflection and quiet. This area is shown in Figure 3.9-14—Romero Creek from San 

Joaquin National Cemetery. The alignment alternative would also pass the O’Neill Forebay of the 

California Aqueduct and the San Luis Reservoir State Recreation Area. 

The line would pass through the roadside community of Santa Nella and cross I-5, which is a 

designated state scenic highway in this area. The impact of the highway crossing is low because the 

railway crosses in an area where the landscape comprises highway-commercial uses and an existing 

roadway overcrossing. 

East of Santa Nella, the line would traverse a landscape of rural agriculture and wetlands open space, 

including a number of state and federal wildlife areas. The alignment alternative would be placed on 

a low structure to cross the wetland areas. A simulation of this is shown in Figure 3.9-15—HST 

Viaduct along Henry Miller Avenue. The introduction of the HST to the open space and parklands 

would be a medium visual impact because the line would be low to the ground and would blend with 

the horizontal landscape. The line would be visible from the Volta Wildlife Area and Los Banos 

Wildlife Area. 

West of the city of Chowchilla, the Henry Miller (UPRR Connection) and Henry Miller (BNSF 

Connection) alignment alternatives would partially split. The leg connecting to the UPRR northbound 

would turn north from the alignment and cross agricultural lands to meet the Central Valley UPRR 

N/S alignment alternative north of the city of Chowcilla. The Henry Miller (UPRR Connection) 

southbound leg would continue east before turning south to meet the Central Valley UPRR N/S 

alignment alternative near the town of Fairmead. This alignment alternative, both the north and 

south legs, would have a low visual impact because it would run at grade. 

The Henry Miller (BNSF Connection) alignment alternative would pass to the south of the city of 

Chowchilla. After crossing SR 99, the line divides into two legs to connect with the Central Valley 

HST line (BNSF alignment alternative) near the Valley State Prison for Women. The two legs would 

have a low visual impact because they would run at grade. 

Historic Buildings, Neighborhoods, Landscapes 

In San Jose, the HST is to be accommodated at the Diridon station by building a concourse and up to 

six HST tracks and three platforms above the existing platforms. The San Jose Diridon station is a 

designated historic property listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The station dates to 

1935, with architectural features characteristic of that period. The proposed platforms for the HST 

would be located at 45 ft (13.7 m) above grade. The platforms would extend more than 1,400 ft 

(400 m), with additional length at either end for the track fans (switches and trackwork to allow the 

two-track mainline to serve all six station tracks). A canopy covering the HST platforms would extend 

the building height to 70 ft (21 m). The City of San Jose is planning an intensification of land uses in 

and around the Diridon station, so the expanded HST station location option would constitute a 

medium visual impact, given that it would be a much longer and taller structure than the existing 

station building but in a setting that is proposed to have many larger buildings developed in the area. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.9 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.9-22

The San Jose to Central Valley corridor south of the urbanized areas of San Jose traverses a largely 

rural and agricultural landscape. Historic buildings, like the 21-Mile House in Morgan Hill, no longer 

exist. The Gilroy Caltrain station would be visually affected by the HST, but the impact can be 

minimized though careful and thoughtful design. The traditional small town landscape present at the 

core of Morgan Hill and Gilroy has coexisted with the railway for all of their histories. The visual 

impact of the HST project is medium, compared with the contrast of recent commercial and 

residential suburban growth. 

In this corridor, most of the visual impact would be from adding new transportation infrastructure 

into an undeveloped rural landscape. The historic character of Monterey Highway, immediately 

adjacent to the UPRR and proposed HST alignment, would be affected by the removal of mature 

trees that visually separate the highway from the railroad. This is shown in the context of the urban 

suburban landscape of South San Jose in Figure 3.9-10. In many places, the trees are denser and 

older than the surrounding landscape. Their removal to expand the rail corridor to accommodate 

HST would have a medium visual impact on the views along much of the Monterey Highway. 

To pass from the UPRR right-of-way to the SR 152 corridor, the HST would develop a new 

transportation corridor across agricultural and open space, not aligned with any existing grid of roads 

or natural features. This would have a medium visual impact on the existing landscape, but that 

impact can be lessened by keeping the HST at grade and planting native flora along the right-of-way. 

Through the Pacheco Creek Valley, the railway would follow the existing highway corridor. The major 

visual landmarks along the highway, such as Elephant Head (a large rock outcropping), would not be 

visually affected by the railway. As the valley narrows, the railway would be mostly out of sight, 

running in tunnels. 

East of Pacheco Pass, the HST would follow Romero Creek past the San Joaquin Valley National 

Cemetery. The alignment would be in trench as it passes the cemetery, crossing northeast of the 

entry road to the cemetery. This would have a medium visual impact on the landscape and the 

cemetery’s remote and quiet setting. 

The three alignment alternatives across the valley would pass through similar landscapes, including 

grasslands and wetlands. The HST infrastructure would have an impact on these open landscapes, 

but the impact can be minimized by running at grade and planting native flora along the line. 

Affected Views from State Scenic Highways 

There are a number of state scenic highways in the corridor. Designated state scenic highways, as of 

November 2006, include I-5 in Stanislaus County and north of SR 152 in Merced County and SR 152 

in Merced County west of I-5. State highways eligible but not officially designated as scenic include 

SR 152 in Santa Clara County east of SR 156. All of these highways, both designated and eligible, 

are considered in this analysis. 

The crossing of I-5 could take place in one of two locations. The GEA North alignment alternative 

would create a high visual impact because it would take place in an open landscape where the 

elevated crossing would be visible from a great distance along the freeway. The Henry Miller 

alignment alternatives would cross at an existing roadway overcrossing in the highway-commercial 

landscape of Santa Nella. This crossing would have a low visual impact because the landscape is 

dominated by the existing highway overcrossings and the commercial landscape along the freeway. 

The line would be visible from many points along SR 152 in Santa Clara and Merced County, 

especially in the Pacheco Creek Valley. The visual impact of the line would vary from low to high, 

relative to the specific location. Where the line parallels the highway, it would have a low visual 

impact, with hills continuing to dominate the landscape. At the locations where the line passes over 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Figure 3.9-14

Romero Creek from San Joaquin National 

Cemetery
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Figure 3.9-15a

HST Viaduct along Henry Miller Avenue
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Figure 3.9-15b

HST Viaduct along Henry Miller Avenue 

Project Simulation

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.9 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.9-23

the highway, the elevated crossing would dominate the view from the highway, having a high visual 

impact. In other locations, where the railway runs on a high fill, the line would have a medium visual 

impact, lessening over time as the embankment is engulfed by the local flora. 

East Bay to Central Valley Corridor

This corridor extends from the Niles Junction area of Fremont in the Bay Area to Manteca and 

Escalon in the Central Valley. The corridor generally parallels SR 84, the UPRR, I-580, I-205, and SR 

120. There are four alternative alignments between Fremont and I-580 in San Joaquin County and 

four alternative alignments between I-580 and the UPRR in Manteca and BNSF in Escalon. The first 

four alternatives vary in their routes across the Amador and Livermore valleys and their routes across 

the hills into the Central Valley. The second four vary in following one of two routes through or 

around the city of Tracy and in which Central Valley HST alignment alternative, UPRR N/S or BNSF, 

they connect to. 

Visual Impacts 

The I-680/580/UPRR, I-580/UPRR, Patterson Pass/UPRR and UPRR East Bay to Central Valley 

alignment alternatives all begin near Niles Canyon in the hills west of Fremont, at the east end of the 

Dumbarton, Fremont Central Park corridor and East Bay Connection. The alignment alternatives 

begin in a tunnel, beneath the hills between Niles Canyon and Morrison Canyon, and continue in a 

northeast direction beneath Alameda Creek and Niles Canyon, Sunol Ridge, and Pleasanton Ridge 

before emerging just north of Castlewood Country Club at Foothill Road. Leaving the tunnel, the 

alignment alternatives run in a trench towards I-680, resulting in a low visual impact. 

Near I-680, the four alternative alignments diverge. The I-680/580/UPRR alternative would turn to 

follow I-680 and I-580 to the base of the Altamont Pass. The HST would be placed on an elevated 

structure alongside I-680. The structure would have a medium visual impact on the adjacent 

residential neighborhoods and potential shadow impacts. It would turn from the freeway right-ofway and cross a commercial development and water ponds before entering the median of I-580, 

elevated above the BART tracks. The aerial structure, as it arcs between the two freeways, would 

create medium visual impacts. Its scale would be consistent with the highway ramps at the freeway 

interchange but it would be well outside the highway, affecting neighboring land uses. 

Once in the median of I-580, the line would remain elevated above the median and BART tracks and 

Dublin-Pleasanton station. The elevated structure would be between 26 ft (7.9 m) to 50 ft (15.2 m), 

reaching the maximum when passing over highway overpasses. The aerial structure would be a 

dominant linear feature along the freeway. The landscape along the freeway is predominantly 

industrial and commercial, with some residential east of the BART station. While the aerial structure 

would be visible, it would be compatible with the freeway, which would continue to dominate the 

landscape. This is illustrated in Figure 3.9-16—HST at I-580/680 Interchange. 

There are three station location options along the I-580 corridor, at the Pleasanton BART station, 

North Livermore, or at Greenville Road. Regardless of the location, all would be configured roughly 

the same. The HST would be elevated above the median of the freeway. The elevated station would 

introduce a 26 ft (7.9 m) to 40 ft (12.1 m) structure above the freeway. The station would extend 

more than 1,400 ft (400 m), with additional length at either end for the track fans (switches and 

trackwork) to allow the two-track mainline to split to four tracks. The center tracks would serve nonstopping trains, while the outer tracks would serve a pair of outside platforms. The platforms would 

be connected by elevators and escalators to potential regional rail facilities in the median of the 

freeway and to a pedestrian undercrossing to connect to the station building on the side of the 

freeway right-of-way. The structure would have a high visual impact because it would extend up to 

0.5 mi. A canopy covering the HST platforms would extend the building height to 70 ft (21 m). 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.9 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.9-24

The Pleasanton BART station location option would locate the HST station above the existing 

Pleasanton BART station. The North Livermore station location option would be along I-580 just west 

of the North Livermore interchange. The proposed station is on property owned by BART for a future 

station and maintenance yard. South of the site is residential development. To the north of I-580 is 

open space. The Greenville Road station location option would be located just east of Greenville 

Road. 

East of the Livermore station, the line would continue elevated in the median of I-580. The elevated 

structure would be between 26 ft (7.9 m) to 50 ft (15.2 m), reaching the maximum when passing 

over highway overpasses. The aerial structure would be a dominant linear feature along the 

freeway. Open space and residential landscapes dominate the north side of the freeway, while the 

south side is predominantly industrial and commercial. While the aerial structure would be visible, 

the freeway would continue to dominate the landscape. 

As I-580 begins to climb to the Altamont Pass, the HST would remain in the median of the freeway 

until passing under the westbound lanes and crossing Carroll Road on an elevated structure and 

entering a tunnel under the pass. The HST would emerge from the tunnel and pass under the west 

and eastbound lanes of I-580 to the south of the freeway to meet the UPRR alignment alternative. 

As the HST passes under the freeway, the visual impact would be low. The alignment alternative 

meets with the other alignment alternatives near the I-580 freeway in San Joaquin County. 

The I-580/UPRR, Patterson Pass/UPRR, and UPRR alignment alternatives would share the same 

alignment from I-680 to east of downtown Livermore, following the UPRR line through Pleasanton 

and Livermore. 

Starting at I-680, the alignment alternatives would follow above the existing railroad right-of-way 

through the traditional small urban community of central Pleasanton, where the elevated structure 

would have a medium visual impact, running above the cross-streets and existing railroad. It would 

have potential shadow impacts on adjacent residential uses. 

East of central Pleasanton, the I-580/UPRR alignment alternative would swing north towards I-580 at 

grade. The line would cross an area of gravel pits and open fields, creating a low visual impact. At I580, the line would transition to an elevated configuration above the median of I-580. The North 

Livermore station location option would be along I-580 just west of the North Livermore interchange. 

The proposed station location option is on property owned by BART for a future station and 

maintenance yard. South of the site is residential development. To the north of I-580 is open space. 

The Greenville Road station location option would be located just east of Greenville Road. 

East of the Livermore station, the line would continue elevated in the median of I-580. The elevated 

structure would be between 26 ft (7.9 m) to 50 ft (15.2 m), reaching the maximum when passing 

over highway overpasses. The aerial structure would be a dominant linear feature along the 

freeway. Open space and residential landscapes dominate the north side of the freeway, while the 

south side is predominantly industrial and commercial. While the aerial structure would be visible, 

the freeway would continue to dominate the landscape. 

As I-580 begins to climb to the Altamont Pass, the HST would remain in the median of the freeway 

until passing under the westbound lanes and crossing Carroll Road on an elevated structure and 

entering a tunnel under the pass. The HST would emerge from the tunnel and pass under the west 

and eastbound lanes of I-580 to the south of the freeway to meet the UPRR alignment. As the HST 

passes under the freeway, the visual impact would be low. The alignment alternative meets with the 

other alignment alternatives near the I-580 freeway in San Joaquin County. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Figure 3.9-16a

HST at I-580/680 Interchange
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Figure 3.9-16b

HST at I-580/680 Interchange 

Project Simulation
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.9 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.9-25

The Patterson Pass/UPRR and UPRR alignment alternatives would descend to an at-grade alignment 

by Valley Boulevard. The line would run on the north side of the existing UPRR tracks and Stanley 

Boulevard past a landscape dominated by active and reclaimed gravel pits. The landscape along 

Stanley Boulevard between Pleasanton and Livermore is best described as industrial open space. The 

existing operating gravel pits are characterized by large industrial conveyor belts, silos, and constant 

truck activity. Some reclaimed pits have been transformed into Shadow Cliffs Regional Park, with 

beaches and lakes. The parklands are well below the grade of the surrounding landscape, at the 

bottom of the reclaimed pits. This obscures many of the local views from the pits, including that of 

the adjacent railway and roadway, limiting the visual impact of existing and potential transportation 

infrastructure. 

The Patterson Pass/UPRR and UPRR alignment alternatives would pass through Livermore at-grade 

along the existing UPRR right-of-way. To accommodate a station in downtown Livermore, the HST 

would need to expand from two to four tracks. This would require the acquisition of some residential 

and commercial properties north of the existing rail right-of-way but would allow the station to be 

built at grade. This would lessen the visual impact of the station, creating a low visual impact, 

because the station building would be of similar scale to other buildings in the downtown area. A 

simulation of this is shown in Figure 3.9-17—HST at grade in Livermore. 

East of downtown Livermore, near North Mines Road, the Patterson Pass/UPRR and UPRR alignment 

alternatives diverge. 

The Patterson Pass/UPRR alignment alternative would continue to follow the UPRR tracks to just east 

of Greenville Road, where it would turn to due east and pass over the hills in a series of cuts and fills. 

West of I-580, the alignment alternative would rejoin the other alignment alternatives. Because the 

Patterson Pass alignment alternative crosses the hills on a repeated series of cuts and fills, none too 

severe, the visual impact would be low. 

The UPRR alignment alternative would leave the UPRR line and follow the former Southern Pacific 

Railway line toward Greenville Road. The Greenville Road station location option is located just east 

of Vasco Road. The station would be at grade, with four tracks: two inside for through HST, and two 

outside for stopping trains, served by a pair of platforms. The at-grade configuration in a landscape 

dominated by industrial distribution warehoused would result in a low visual impact. 

As the alignment alternative nears the hills, it would climb on an embankment and then transition to 

a tall structure as it passes over Greenville Road into the hills. Once in the open space of the 

Altamont Pass, the line would make a cut on its run to the summit. The cut would be deep but less 

visually dominant than the existing 8-lane freeway, resulting in a medium visual impact. Near the 

summit, this alignment alternative meets the I-580 alignment alternative. 

Just west of the North Flynn Road interchange, the HST is in a deep cut to the north of the existing 

freeway. This is shown in Figure 3.9-18—HST alongside Freeway, Altamont Pass. 

The landscape of the Altamont Pass is open space characterized by treeless, grassy hills and a 

multitude of wind turbines. It is crossed by two major transportation corridors and a third 

abandoned one. The I-580 freeway is an eight-lane facility with very heavy traffic volumes. It 

dominates the area, with each direction of the freeway on different alignments on the east side of 

the pass. The UPRR is visually obvious as it passes through the area, but it does not dominate the 

landscape because it is only a single-track railway, about 15% the width of the freeway. The former 

Southern Pacific Railroad grade is still clearly visible, including the cuts and fills, but the right-of-way 

has been reclaimed by grasses. The hillsides away from the freeway are dominated by lines of wind 

turbines. There are over 4,000 wind turbines in the Altamont Pass area. A view is shown in Figure 

3.9-19—I-580, Altamont Pass. The introduction of a new HST alignment alternative to this landscape 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.9 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.9-26

would have a low visual impact because it would be complementary to the existing railway and 

highway earthworks. The line would cross large cuts and fills as it descends to the Central Valley, 

down the east side of the pass. It would run in the same area, south of the freeway, as the existing 

and abandoned railway lines but would take a straighter and steeper route. The UPRR alignment 

alternative meets the I-680/580/UPRR and I-580/UPRR alignment alternatives just east of the 

Altamont summit, and the three share a common alignment until meeting the Patterson Pass/UPRR 

alignment alternative just west of I-580 in San Joaquin County. 

There are four alignment alternatives between I-580 and Manteca and Escalon. A pair of alignment 

alternatives, the Tracy ACE Station (BNSF Connection) and Tracy ACE Station (UPRR Connection), 

would share a common alignment to the south of Tracy until diverging near Oakwood Lake, 

southwest of Manteca. The other pair of alternative alignments, the Tracy Downtown (BNSF) and 

Tracy Downtown (UPRR), would pass through the City of Tracy and diverge west of Oakwood Lake. 

The Tracy ACE Station (BNSF Connection) and Tracy ACE Station (UPRR Connection) alignment 

alternatives run down out of the hills in a southeasterly direction, crossing I-580 near the Corral 

Hollow Road interchange. I-580 is a designated state scenic highway in San Joaquin County. The 

structure to carry the HST across the freeway and adjacent canals would be visible from a distance 

along the freeway. The landscape in the area is predominately open space, and the freeway runs in 

a straight line for miles in each direction. However, the impact of the rail crossing would be lessened 

by the existing adjacent highway overcrossing, resulting in a medium visual impact. 

Once across the freeway, the alignment alternatives would curve to the northeast as they cross the 

Edward G. Brown Aqueduct and the Delta-Mendota Canal, still on an elevated structure. Once over 

the canals, the line would descend to grade. The route would pass south of the Tracy Municipal 

Airport and join the UPRR right-of-way near Linne Road. 

A potential station location option is planned to serve Tracy along this route west of South Banta 

Road near the San Joaquin Defense Depot. The proposed station would consist of four tracks and 

two island platforms above a station concourse. The tracks and platforms would be elevated about 

26 ft (7.9 m) above grade, with the platform shelter canopies extending to about 40 ft (12.1 m). The 

station would be more than 1,400 ft (400 m), with additional length at either end for the track fans 

(switches and trackwork) to allow the two-track mainline to split to four tracks. While this would be a 

large structure, it would not be as dominant as the Defense Depot buildings in the surrounding 

industrial and rural agricultural landscape. 

The Tracy ACE Station (BNSF Connection) and Tracy ACE Station (UPRR Connection) alignment 

alternatives would continue to follow the UPRR, passing under I-5. Near Oakwood Lake, the 

northbound leg of the Tracy ACE Station (UPRR Connection) would diverge and connect with the 

Central Valley UPRR N/S alignment alternative near Lathrop. This connection, at grade, would be a 

low visual impact. The Tracy ACE Station (BNSF Connection) and Tracy ACE Station (UPRR 

Connection) southbound leg would cross into the median of SR 120 just east of I-5. The line would 

have a low visual impact along the freeway. The connection to the UPRR would be made near the 

intersection of SR 120 and SR 99.The Tracy ACE Station (BNSF Connection) would continue east past 

the intersection of SR 120 and SR 99 in the right–of-way of the future SR 120 freeway. The 

northbound connection to the BNSF would turn to the north east of the city of Escalon to join the 

BNSF alignment north of Escalon. The southbound connection would continue east until turning south 

to join the BNSF alignment south of Escalon. The HST would have a low visual impact as it passes 

through orchards and groves on the way to the BNSF line in Escalon. 

The Tracy Downtown (BNSF Connection) and Tracy Downtown (UPRR Connection) alignment 

alternatives would leave the hills with a series of cut and fill sections. Near I-580, they would curve 

to the northeast and transition to an aerial structure to cross the UPRR, I-580, and adjacent canals. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Figure 3.9-17a

HST at grade in Livermore
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Figure 3.9-17b

HST at grade in Livermore 

Project Simulation
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Figure 3.9-18a

HST alongside Freeway, Altamont Pass
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Figure 3.9-18b

HST alongside Freeway, Altamont Pass 

Project Simulation
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Figure 3.9-19

I-580, Altamont Pass

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.9 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.9-27

I-580 is a designated state scenic highway in San Joaquin County. The landscape in the area is 

predominately open space south of the proposed crossing and a mix of open space and 

warehousing/industrial north of the crossing. The freeway runs in a straight line for miles in each 

direction, so the structure to carry the HST across the freeway would be visible from a distance along 

the freeway. The visual impact would be medium because the large warehousing complex is also a 

dominant feature in the landscape. 

Across the canals, the line joins the former Southern Pacific (now UPRR) rail right-of-way to cross 

through Tracy. The landscape along the right-of-way is urban suburban, with new residential 

neighborhoods behind soundwalls that line the rail right-of-way. The introduction of HST to the area 

would be a low visual impact because the surrounding neighborhoods are already shielded from the 

rail corridor. This is shown in Figure 3.9-20—Rail Corridor in Tracy. 

East of Schulte Road, the line would transition to an aerial structure into the Downtown Tracy station 

location option. The station would be elevated about 26 ft (7.9 m) above grade, with the platform 

shelter canopies extending to about 40 ft (12.1 m). The station would be more than 1,400 ft 

(400 m), with additional length at either end for the track fans (switches and trackwork) to allow the 

two-track mainline to split to four tracks. The landscape surrounding the station location option is a 

mix of urban suburban and traditional small urban community. The station would dominate the area 

because it would be of a significant size, making a medium visual impact. 

East of the station location option, the tracks would transition back to grade. They would run 

alongside the existing freight tracks, passing under 11th Street and I-205. They would meet the 

Tracy ACE Station (BNSF Connection) and Tracy ACE Station (UPRR Connection) near Oakwood Lake, 

near the intersection of I-5 and SR 120. 

Near Oakwood Lake, the northbound leg of the Tracy Downtown (UPRR Connection) alignment 

alternative would diverge and connect with the Central Valley UPRR N/S alignment alternative near 

Lathrop. This connection, at grade, would be a low visual impact. The Tracy Downtown (BNSF 

Connection) and Tracy Downtown (UPRR Connection) southbound leg would cross into the median of 

SR 120 just east of I-5. The line would have a low visual impact along the freeway. The connection 

to the UPRR would be made near the intersection of SR 120 and SR 99.The Tracy Downtown (BNSF 

Connection) would continue east past the intersection of SR 120 and SR 99 in the right of way of the 

future SR 120 freeway. The northbound connection to the BNSF would turn to the north east of the 

City of Escalon to join the BNSF alignment north of Escalon. The southbound connection would 

continue east until turning south to join the BNSF alignment south of Escalon. The HST would have a 

low visual impact as it passes through orchards and groves on the way to the BNSF line in Escalon. 

Historic Buildings, Neighborhoods, Landscapes 

The East Bay to Central Valley corridor passes through landscapes that were largely rural agricultural 

until a few decades ago. Many of the historic buildings in the corridor have either been destroyed or 

engulfed by the newly built urban suburban landscape. 

The HST would cause a visual impact on the traditional small urban community landscape of the 

residential areas along the UPRR right-of-way in central Pleasanton. The alignment alternative 

through Downtown Tracy would also be visually affected by a HST station location option adjacent to 

its downtown. 

The scenic landscape along Alameda Creek in Niles Canyon would be unaffected by the HST because 

the alignment alternative would be in a tunnel though the area. Over Altamont Pass, the HST would 

make deep cuts into the hills, but the freeway and thousands of wind turbines would continue to 

dominate the visual landscape. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.9 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.9-28

Affected Views from State Scenic Highways 

There are a number of state scenic highways in this corridor. Designated state scenic highways, as 

of November 2006, include I-680 in Alameda County and I-580 in San Joaquin County. State 

highways eligible but not officially designated as scenic include I-580 in Alameda County and SR 84 in 

Alameda County between SR 238 in Fremont and Interstate 680. All of these highways, both 

designated and eligible, are considered in this analysis. 

SR 84 at the mouth of Niles Canyon would be affected by the East Bay connector between the East 

Bay to Central Valley corridor and the Oakland to San Jose corridor with a partially elevated, partially 

at-grade line crossing Alameda Creek and SR 84. SR 84 through Niles Canyon would not be visually 

affected by the HST because the alignment alternative would be in tunnels through the area. 

The aerial HST along I-680 would create a medium visual impact because the structure would 

dominate views of the hills from the freeway. I-680 would also experience a medium visual impact as 

the line passes above the freeway and crosses to follow I-580 toward Livermore. 

I-580 in Alameda County would be visually affected, especially at the freeway median station sites, if 

the alignment alternative along I-680 and I-580 were used. Views from I-580 through the Altamont 

Pass would be minimally affected by the cuts to take the HST Alignment Alternative through the hills. 

This is shown in 3.9-19. 

I-580 in San Joaquin County would be visually affected where the HST crosses the freeway. Details 

are noted in the text above. 

San Francisco Bay Crossings Corridor

There are two Trans Bay Crossing alignment alternatives between Oakland and San Francisco and six 

alignment alternatives between Redwood City and western mouth of Niles Canyon in Fremont, 

crossing the bay at Dumbarton. The Trans Bay Crossing alternatives both begin in Oakland, 

connecting with the Oakland-San Jose corridor and proceeding in a tunnel under San Francisco Bay. 

One Transbay alternative terminates at the Transbay Transit Center in Downtown San Francisco. The 

other terminates at the Caltrain 4th and King station in the South of Market neighborhood. The six 

alignment alternatives between Redwood City and Fremont are divided into three Dumbarton 

alternatives and three Fremont Central Park alternatives. The six alternatives share the same 

horizontal alignment between the Caltrain corridor in Redwood City and the eastern edge of the bay 

in Newark. There are three vertical alignments considered for the Dumbarton and Fremont Central 

Park bay crossings: a high bridge, low bridge, and underwater tunnel. The Dumbarton alignment 

alternative crosses Newark and Fremont along the UPRR Centerville line. The Fremont Central Park 

alignment alternative follows a powerline corridor across Fremont. 

Visual Impacts 

The two Transbay alignment alternatives differ by their terminus in San Francisco. One begins at the 

Townsend Street station beneath Townsend Street between Fourth and Fifth Streets in San 

Francisco’s South of Market district and runs beneath Townsend Street to the Bay. The second 

begins beneath the Transbay Transit Center and runs beneath Main Street to the Bay. Each 

alternative leaves San Francisco in the vicinity of Pier 38-40 and crosses the Bay in a tunnel. The 

alignment alternatives make landfall at the southwest corner of the former Alameda Naval Air Station. 

At this location, the line would split, with one alignment alternative turning north to cross beneath 

the estuary and Port of Oakland to meet the Oakland-San Jose line at the West Oakland station 

location option. A second alignment alternative would run northeast to pass beneath the estuary and 

cross the alternate Oakland-San Jose line perpendicularly at the West Oakland station location option. 

This line would connect to the 12th Street/City Center Oakland alignment alternative from the 

Oakland to San Jose corridor. All of the Transbay alignment alternatives would be underground. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Figure 3.9-20

Rail Corridor in Tracy

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.9 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.9-29

There would be ventilation shafts along the alignment alternative. These structures would be visible, 

but most would be a minor alteration to the visual landscape in which they are located. 

The Dumbarton alignment alternative begins in Redwood City, where the route leaves the Caltrain 

line and turns east along the existing Dumbarton rail line at grade through the urban suburban 

landscape. East of Willow Road, the route would approach the San Francisco Bay. There are three 

options for the bay crossing at Dumbarton—a high bridge where the main span would provide 

complete clearance over the shipping channel, a low bridge with a moveable span at the shipping 

channel, and a bored tunnel under the bay. All would occupy generally the same horizontal 

alignment. All alignment alternatives would remove the existing railway trestle and drawbridge, built 

in 1910, and all would run through the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Area. 

The landscape of the Dumbarton crossing is one of low horizontal baylands and wetlands, traversed 

by power lines, the Dumbarton highway bridge (SR 84), and pipe trestles that carry the Hetch Hetchy 

aqueduct across the bay and the rail bridge. See Figure 3.9-21—Dumbarton Landscape. The high 

rail bridge alignment alternative would replace the existing low-level rail bridge with a bridge closer in 

appearance to the existing highway bridge, but longer and narrower. The added length of the high 

level alignment alternative would create a medium visual impact to the view from the existing 

highway when contrasted with the low, horizontal views of the wetlands, but it would create a 

complementary view when viewed from the wetlands, creating matching bridges and removing the 

low-level bridge and its contrasting form, resulting in an overall medium visual impact. This is 

illustrated in Figure 3.9-22—Dumbarton High Bridge. 

The low-level bridge alignment alternative would result in a minimal visual impact because it would 

be low to the Bay like the existing rail bridge and aqueduct trestles but could be designed as a more 

horizontal structure to complement the landscape of the wetlands. It would also span a longer 

distance than the existing rail bridge, allowing the wetlands to flow beneath the railway. A visual 

simulation of the low bridge alignment alternative is shown in Figure 3.9-23—Dumbarton Low Trestle. 

A tunnel beneath the Bay would have no visual impact because it would place the HST underground 

and out of sight, with the exception of venting structures. The existing rail bridge would be removed, 

along with the existing railway embankment. A visual simulation of the tunnel option is shown in 

Figure 3.9-24—Tunnel Crossing at Dumbarton. 

Soon after leaving the baylands, the line would be elevated. The elevated structure would be 

between 26 ft (7.9 m) to 50 ft (15.2 m). This would introduce a new elevated lineal element into the 

immediate landscape. The structure would have a medium visual impact on residential areas along 

the corridor, including shadow impacts, especially where the structure ascends to its maximum height 

to cross above highway overcrossings of the existing railway. The alignment alternative would cross 

the UPRR Coast Line and then leave the rail right-of-way to avoid a series of very sharp curves. The 

route would run elevated though a neighborhood of single and multi-family homes, requiring the 

acquisition and removal of some homes. This would create a high visual impact because the new 

elevated rail structure would be in high contrast to the existing neighborhood form and character, 

both in its horizontal and vertical alignment. It would cross the existing street grid at an angle, 

breaking the repeating grid of homes in many places. It would create shadow impacts to the 

remaining residential uses and Civic Center Park. East of Civic Center Park, the line would remain 

elevated, but it would be within the right-of-way of the UPRR. 

The elevated line would pass the Centerville Depot (1910), in use today for Amtrak and ACE trains. 

The elevated structure would make a high visual impact on the area and create shadow impacts on 

the depot and plaza. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.9 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.9-30

Immediately east of the BART line, an HST station location option could be provided at Shinn Street 

to allow interchange between the HST and BART. The station would be an elevated four track 

station. The total height of the station, including the canopies over the HST platforms, would extend 

up to 65 ft (20 m) for more than 1,400 ft (400 m). This would result in a large structure that would 

be the most visually dominant feature in the surrounding urban suburban landscape, creating a high 

visual impact. Leaving the station, the line would leave the rail right-of-way and pass over a water 

feature (pond) in a former gravel pit. It would then cross a residential neighborhood, requiring the 

removal of some homes, before entering the foothills. The elevated line in the urban suburban 

residential landscape would create a high visual impact. 

As the HST line enters the hills east of Fremont, the route would meet the alignment alternative 

through Fremont and the East Bay to Central Valley corridor. 

The Fremont Central Park alignment alternatives would follow the same alignment as the Dumbarton 

alternatives from Redwood City to the east side of San Francisco Bay, with the same three options for 

the bay crossing and the same visual impacts. Once across the bay, the line would run to the south 

of the Dumbarton route. It would begin at the edge of the baylands and curve to the south across 

salt ponds. The introduction of the rail line to the open space of the salt ponds would create a 

medium visual impact. The horizontal landscape of the salt ponds is already crossed by a number of 

high tension power lines, and the addition of the catenary for the HST electrification would be a 

similar visual component to the landscape. 

The line would then turn east and transition to an elevated structure to cross the UPRR Coast line 

and continue elevated across the industrial landscape of Newark. A station location option would be 

provided just east of Boyce Road. The elevated station would be up to 45 ft (13.7 m) tall and more 

than 1,400 ft (400 m) long. While this would be a large structure, it is not out of scale with the 

existing industrial landscape, having a low visual impact. 

The route would continue along an industrial railway spur, cross over I-880, and follow a power line 

corridor through an urban suburban residential landscape. The elevated route would pass Blacow 

Park, creating shadow impacts. East of Blacow Park, the line would transition into an underground 

alignment, continuing beneath the power line right-of-way. After passing beneath Paseo Padre 

Parkway, the alignment alternative would pass to the east of Fremont Central Park along the existing 

UPRR line. Through this area, there would be low visual impact from the at-grade line. Here the 

alignment meets the Oakland-San Jose corridor and the East Bay to Central Valley corridor. 

Historic Buildings, Neighborhoods, Landscapes 

The Transbay alignment alternatives would pass beneath the South Beach Historic District in San 

Francisco. There are also historic buildings on the former Naval Air Station in Alameda, including the 

former hangers, which form a historic landscape. The Transbay alignment alternatives are 

underground, so they would have no impact on the historic district or buildings. 

The Dumbarton and Fremont Central Park alignment alternatives would cross the Don Edwards San 

Francisco Bay National Wildlife Area, a nationally significant open space. Depending on the type of 

Bay crossing, the visual impact would vary. A high-level bridge would have an overall medium visual 

impact on the open space of the bay and wetlands. The high bridge form would complement the 

existing highway bridge. The extended length of the crossing, relative to the existing bridge, would 

extend the form of the high bridge across a greater part of the landscape. A low-level bridge would 

have a lesser impact because it could be designed to complement the horizontal landscape of the bay 

and wetlands to a greater degree than the existing steel truss railroad bridge. A tunnel would have 

no visual impact. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Figure 3.9-21

Dumbarton Landscape
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Figure 3.9-22

Dumbarton High Bridge
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Figure 3.9-23

Dumbarton Low Trestle
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Figure 3.9-24

Tunnel Crossing at Dumbarton
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.9 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.9-31

The Dumbarton alignment alternatives would require an elevated alignment past the historic 

Centerville Depot in Fremont. The depot was built in 1910 and is the last remaining Southern Pacific 

“Number 23”-style depots in service as a train station, and one of only less than a dozen left in the 

state of California. An elevated HST line past the station would create a high visual impact and cause 

shadow impacts on the historic depot. 

The community of Niles was home to the early film industry and the Essanay Film Manufacturing 

Company studios filmed many movies in the area. The Vallejo Mill Historical Park, at the northeast 

corner of Niles Canyon Road and Mission Boulevard, (SR 238) commemorates the flower mill (1856) 

of José de Jesús Vallejo, brother of General M. G. Vallejo, on his Rancho Arroyo de la Alameda. The 

elevated structure and cut and fills required to bring the Centerville alignment alternative into Niles 

Canyon would be visible from the mill, but the line would have a low visual impact on these historic 

sites because the landscape surrounding them has been altered significantly by development over the 

past 150 years. 

Affected Views from State Scenic Highways 

There are no state scenic highways, designated or eligible, in this corridor. 

Central Valley Corridor

This corridor extends from Lodi, through Stockton and Merced, to near Madera. There are six HST 

alignment alternatives. Alignment alternatives include connections between the UPRR and BNSF 

right-of-ways that provide alternatives that use all or portions of each rail line. 

Visual Impacts 

The two existing rail lines in the Central Valley are the UPRR, which generally runs adjacent to SR 99 

and through the center of many communities, and the BNSF, which runs to the east of most of the 

valley communities between Stockton and Fresno. The UPRR alignment was originally the Southern 

Pacific alignment, the first railway in the Central Valley. Construction of this railway lead to the 

development of towns that centered on the railway station. The BNSF came later, after the towns 

had developed. This results in a UPRR line today that runs through more urbanized areas, while the 

BNSF line is still in mostly agricultural areas. 

Any alignment alternative would result in the construction of a new, two-track, fully grade separated 

high speed railway in or adjacent to an existing railway right-of-way. In many cases, grade 

separations would cross both the high speed line and the existing (or relocated) freight railway. 

Except at stations and where soundwalls are erected, these new grade separations would be the 

main visual impact of the HST in this corridor. 

Adding a two-track high-speed railway to the UPRR N/S alignment alternative would require fewer 

new grade separations because there are many existing grade separations along the line, especially 

where it runs adjacent to SR 99. The new separations would be mainly in the center of communities. 

Use of this rail line would likely require more soundwalls because it runs in a generally more 

developed corridor. Visual impacts from potential station location options in Stockton, Modesto, 

Merced, and Fresno would be generally the same as those of the BNSF line because both share many 

of the same station options. 

The BNSF alignment alternative is more rural in nature. More new grade separations would be 

required, but they would be in open landscapes and likely not as complex as the separations required 

along the UPRR N/S alignment alternative. There would also likely be fewer soundwalls required. 

The UPRR N/S, UPRR-BNSF Castle, and UPRR-BNSF alignment alternatives begin near the town of 

French Camp, just south of Stockton, where the line would rise to cross a rail yard. Past the rail 

yard, an alternative connection to the BNSF diverges. The BNSF connection alignment would turn to 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.9 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.9-32

the east on a new alignment, crossing agricultural landscapes before meeting the existing BNSF line 

near Five Corners. This alignment alternative would cross above SR 99 on an elevated structure, 

creating a medium visual impact from the highway. 

The remaining UPRR alignment alternatives would follow the existing railway through the city of 

Manteca, through agricultural, urban suburban, and traditional small urban community landscapes. 

The line would be elevated as it passes through central Manteca, creating a low visual impact 

because the structure would only be visible from cross streets and would not be much taller than the 

existing buildings in the area. 

Leaving Manteca, the line would run parallel to both the UPRR railway and SR 99. Many roadways 

are already grade-separated from both the highway and UPRR. The introduction of the HST railway 

would have no visual impact because there already are the twin lineal elements of the highway and 

railway. This condition exists for most of the UPRR N/S alignment alternative between Manteca and 

Fresno. The deviation occurs where the highway leaves the railway to bypass the downtown districts 

of the valley cities. A typical view of the UPRR alongside SR 99 is shown in Figure 3.9-25. 

In Modesto, SR 99 bypasses the downtown area. The UPRR N/S alignment alternative would remain 

at grade with the UPRR through Modesto, with crossing streets grade separated or closed. The 

Modesto station location option would be at grade, with sidings to serve the station platforms. The 

platforms would be accessed by an underground walkway, keeping the station profile low, resulting 

in no visual impact. South of the station location option, the alignment alternative would cross the 

Tuolumne River. There are two possible segments, eastern and western, through Modesto. The 

eastern segment crosses slightly upstream of the existing UPRR crossing. The western segment 

crosses slightly downstream through residential and industrial landscapes. The eastern segment is 

mainly in an industrial landscape. Either would require the removal of existing buildings, resulting in 

a low visual impact because the area is dominated by the existing railway and freeway. 

The UPRR N/S alignment alternative rejoins SR 99 as it heads to Turlock. The alignment leaves the 

freeway to pass through Turlock. An elevated structure would take the HST through downtown 

Turlock, with a low visual impact on the existing community. 

A potential at-grade station location option in Merced is planned at the location of the now vacant 

Southern Pacific depot. To accommodate both conventional rail and HST, the station and platforms 

would need to be expanded. This would require the acquisition of adjacent property for both the 

station facilities and the expanded trackway serving the station. The station would consist of two 

tracks and a single platform for conventional rail and four tracks and two platforms for HST, all 

connected by an elevated pedestrian crossing. Because the station is at grade, the visual impact 

would be low. 

South of Merced, the line would continue alongside the UPRR and SR 99. An optional alignment 

alternative would curve to the east along McHenry Road to connect to the BNSF alignment 

alternative. New grade separations would be required to cross the railways and freeway in this area 

because SR 99 is an expressway in this area, with at grade intersections. 

At the Chowchilla River, a possible connection to the Henry Miller (UPRR Connection) alignment 

alternative curves off to the west. Through the town of Chowchilla, the HST would ascend to an 

elevated structure. This would have a low visual impact on the surrounding landscape. 

South of Chowchilla, a possible connection from the Henry Miller (UPRR Connection) alignment 

alternative would join the UPRR N/S alignment alternative. The alignment alternative would remain 

at grade alongside SR 99 and the UPRR all the way to Fresno. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Figure 3.9-25

UPRR along SR 99

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.9 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.9-33

The BNSF-UPRR, BNSF Castle, and BNSF alignment alternatives begin east of Lodi along Furry Road 

in an agricultural landscape. The BNSF alignment alternative continues along the existing BNSF 

railway. The HST would remain at grade alongside the BNSF railway through an agricultural 

landscape, rising on an elevated structure to pass through Escalon, with a low visual impact. South 

of Escalon, the HST would deviate to the west of the BNSF railway to ease a curve north of the 

Stanislaus River. It would then elevate to pass through the community of Riverbank, again with a 

low visual impact. 

On the east side of Modesto, a potential HST station location option would be constructed at grade at 

Briggsmore Avenue. This would have low visual impact on the surrounding rural agricultural 

landscape to the east of the tracks and the urban suburban landscape to the west. 

The BNSF alignment alternative remains at grade through the communities of Houghston and Denair, 

with no visual impact. The line would remain at grade with the BNSF railway until it deviates to the 

west to ease a curve near the Merced River. 

The rural agricultural and residential urban suburban landscape between Atwater and Merced is 

crossed with a number of alignment alternatives. The BNSF and UPRR-BNSF alignment alternatives 

would follow the existing BNSF right of way through Atwater at grade and then curve to the west as 

it passes North Buhach Road to join the UPRR to pass through Merced. This connection from the 

BNSF to the UPRR would be a new alignment, passing at angles across an established rural 

agricultural landscape, creating a medium visual impact. Another alignment alternative for the HST 

through Merced, BNSF Castle, would continue to follow the BNSF railway at grade through Merced. 

The UPRR N/S alignment alternative through Merced would be at grade, with a combined HST and 

conventional rail station location option at the site of the former Southern Pacific station. While some 

properties would need to be acquired to accommodate the expanded station, the visual impact would 

be low because the station would be at grade. 

South of Merced, the BNSF alignment alternative would leave the UPRR N/S alignment alternative 

and curve east along McHenry Road to rejoin the BNSF railway just north of Le Grand. This 

alignment alternative would have no visual impact because it crosses a primarily agricultural 

landscape. The alignment alternative that keeps the HST on the BNSF line through Merced would 

require a curve to be eased as the line passes out of Merced along SR 140. This would require the 

acquisition and removal of some buildings, creating a low visual impact. 

After passing the community of Le Grand, the HST alignment alternative would deviate from the 

BNSF alignment to the west to ease a curve north of the Chowchilla River. After passing the river, an 

alignment alternative to the Henry Miller (BNSF Connection) alignment alternative would curve to the 

west. The alignment alternative would end near Berenda Creek, where it would be met by the Henry 

Miller (UPRR Connection) alignment alternative. 

Historic Buildings, Neighborhoods, Landscapes 

There are few historic sites along the corridor. The UPRR alignment passes through the center of 

most of the towns and cities between Stockton and Fresno, many of which still exhibit the traditional 

small urban landscape of valley towns. Additionally, many of the railway stations along the corridor 

are historic in nature or replicas of original stations. Most of the HST would be at grade, adjacent to 

an existing railway, so the visual impacts would be low. 

Affected Views from State Scenic Highways 

There are no state scenic highways, designated or eligible, in the Central Valley corridor. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.9 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.9-34

Short-Term Construction Impacts

Construction of the HST system would have short-term impacts on visual resources that vary with the 

type of alignment (at-grade, elevated, tunnel, etc.) selected. The construction process is similar to 

that of roadway construction. The following descriptions are not meant to exhaustively detail the 

HST construction process but rather discuss the major components of construction and their impact 

on the visual quality of the surrounding landscape during construction. 

For all construction, the alignment is surveyed. For areas of cut and fill construction, the alignment is 

fenced, and heavy equipment excavates/fills soil to the grade of the future rail line while the 

drainage, swales, and culverts are constructed. The earthworks are compacted and allowed to settle 

in areas of fill. Slopes are seeded to prevent erosion. The visual impact of this type of construction 

is greatest when excavation/fill activities take place; the fresh soil contrasts with the surrounding 

landscape. The level of overall activity from the construction equipment is greater than rail 

operations. Activity during construction is not limited to the trackway area; it is spread across the 

entire right-of-way. As the cut and fill earthworks are completed, the area would be planted with 

appropriate native flora. As time passes, it is assumed that the landscape outside the immediate HST 

trackway would revegetate to visually blend with the surrounding landscape. 

At-grade construction would commence where there is already a level path for the HST or along 

areas where the path for the HST was created through cuts and fills, as described above. If building 

on level ground, the existing topsoil and any vegetation is removed. Utilities are relocated and 

drainage is constructed. Soil is brought to the site, deposited along the line, and carefully 

compacted. The trackway is built by depositing layers of crushed stone (sub ballast) covered by a 

geo-textile fleece, which is covered with gravel and topped with a layer of asphalt. This portion of 

the construction is very similar to highway construction, with similar construction methods. 

There are two potential types of rail systems that can be used for HSTs. One is the familiar concrete 

crosstie to hold the rails, the other is embedded slab track, a continuous concrete base to which the 

rails are attached. Each is constructed using a highly mechanized system. 

Additional trackway construction includes the installation of cable ducts, catenary pole foundations 

and the poles atop them, installation of the catenary wires and fencing, soundwalls, and crash 

barriers where the HST runs in a constrained right-of-way near other rail systems or highways. The 

final step would be to plant the areas outside the trackway with appropriate native plants and 

grasses, or ornamental landscaping in urbanized areas. 

The HST trackway must be separated from roadway crossings, highways, and freight railway lines. 

Grade separations, overpasses and underpasses, and short sections of tunnel would need to be 

constructed. The short-term visual impacts from these activities would include increased truck traffic 

on local streets and the presence of construction machinery in the immediate area of the separations. 

Temporary detours of streets and adjacent rail lines (rail detours are known as shooflies) have the 

potential for high visual impacts, especially if the existing rail line must be placed on a shoofly that 

runs outside a constrained right-of-way. 

In areas where the HST would be on an elevated alignment, the construction requires placing piles 

and excavating foundations for the support columns, erecting formwork for the columns that would 

support the structure, delivering concrete to the site by truck, and constructing the elevated spans, 

either by lifting prefabricated concrete or steel spans into place with cranes, or building falsework to 

cast concrete spans in place. Either method requires large construction machinery, which would be a 

high visual impact in most locations during the span of construction. Once the elevated structure is 

complete, the trackway would be constructed upon it. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.9 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.9-35

Retained fill sections would require the removal of the existing topsoil and vegetation in the 

immediate construction area. Additional excavation below the existing grade could be necessary in 

areas with poor soil conditions. This initial phase of construction would resemble the at-grade 

construction. To support the retaining walls, pile-supported concrete foundation beams would be 

built along the line of the wall. Pre-cast interlocking panels would be placed atop the beam, and soil 

would be deposited behind the walls and compacted. This would require constant operation of 

compacting vehicles. As the walls rise, so would the soil behind them. Truck traffic would be 

increased in the project area as the soil and other materials are brought to the site. The visual 

impact of the truck traffic would vary, from low to high, depending on the general traffic conditions in 

the area. In areas of low traffic, the short-term construction traffic would be a medium visual 

impact. In busier areas, the construction traffic would blend in with the existing traffic, with a low 

visual impact. 

Once the retained fill and walls reach the final height, the remaining construction activities associated 

with trackway construction would take place atop the completed retained fill section. A final activity 

would be to landscape the area on and at the base of the walls. 

Construction of retained cut sections would begin with the removal of vegetation in the project area 

and the erection of safety fencing around the project perimeter. Underground utilities in the area 

would be relocated. Steel sheet piles would be driven down each side of the excavation area to 

shore up the adjacent soils. This would be done with tall pile-driving machinery, and would be a high 

visual impact during the construction period. Detours would take roadways around the construction 

of permanent bridges to carry traffic over the completed cut section. Heavy machinery would 

excavate the area and trucks would haul the excavated soil away from the site. As the cut deepens, 

the activity would fall from the view of adjacent properties, but the truck traffic leaving the site would 

create a visual impact, especially in areas where truck traffic is normally low. As the cut is 

completed, the walls would be finished in concrete and the trackway at the bottom of the cut would 

be finished as discussed above. Final steps would be to return the detoured roadways to the new 

overcrossings, build permanent fencing along the cut, and establish landscaping where appropriate. 

As noted previously, the level of visual impact from the construction traffic would vary with the level 

of other traffic in the project area. 

Cut and cover tunnels would be constructed much like the open cut described above, but the entire 

cut would be bridged over when complete. Soil would be deposited atop the roof of the cut and 

streets would be rebuilt at grade. To minimize costs, it is desirable to store the excavated soil that 

would be re-used on site somewhere near the site. Depending on conditions that would affect the 

volume of soil to be stored, this temporary stockpile could create a medium to high visual impact, the 

level of which would depend on the adjacent uses and the amount of material stored. When the 

tunnel was backfilled with soil, the remaining surfaces would be landscaped. 

As is the case with long-term visual impacts, the short-term visual impacts of bored tunnel 

construction would be constrained to the tunnel portals and any possible vent shafts. Depending on 

tunnel length, the short term visual impacts can be high. Support facilities for tunneling include 

concrete plants, soil transfer stations (to take soil excavated from the tunnel and load it onto vehicles 

to take it off-site for disposal), and construction offices. Tunnel vent shaft locations are less 

intrusive, yet the short term visual impact from construction is far greater than the long term. Once 

the tunnel is complete, the area at the portal can be returned to its previous state, eliminating the 

visual impacts from the construction period. 

For all above-grade construction activities and cut and cover tunnels, staging areas with construction 

materials, signage, and night lighting would be visible from adjacent properties and roadways during 

the construction period. For tunneled sections, the construction activity would be limited to portal 

and potential vent shaft locations. Additional systemwide construction activity includes a central 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.9 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.9-36

location for rail and ballast deliveries. These impacts can vary from low to high, depending on the 

surrounding land uses. Sites in industrial landscapes would experience a low visual impact from 

staging areas. Rural locations would most likely experience high visual impacts from staging 

activities.

3.9.4 Photo Simulations of Alternatives in Selected Scenic Areas 

The photo simulations referenced above illustrate what the HST Alignment Alternatives or station location 

options may look like in typical landscapes, using existing conditions as the baseline. These simulations 

do not include potential changes to the existing landscapes that could occur between the time of this 

analysis and the year 2020 from other projects and urban development. These simulations are meant to 

illustrate how the existing dominant landscape features would be potentially changed with the 

implementation of the proposed alternatives. 

3.9.5 Design Practices 

It would be speculative to address specific aesthetic treatments at the conceptual level of design of this 

program-level study. However, the Authority is committed to working with local agencies and 

communities during subsequent project-level environmental review to develop systemwide design 

elements that draw from the best practices worldwide and work at the project-level of design and 

analysis to develop context-sensitive aesthetic designs and treatments for HST infrastructure 

(overcrossings, bridges, tunnel portals, soundwalls, walls and fencing, stations, support facilities, etc.). 

Specific, systemwide elements include fencing, noise barriers, power substations, catenary system, rails, 

and roadbed. The visual impact of the railway as it passes through the landscape is discussed previously 

in this document. The systemwide elements that are present along the railway contribute to the overall 

visual impact, but they are secondary to the visual impact of the railway’s alignment at most times. 

The rails and roadbed are placed at grade or on the structure that makes up the trackway. Because the 

rails and roadbed are low in profile, their visual impact is almost none. The catenary system, which 

consists of the poles, cables, and wires that provide the electrical power to the railway, extends for up to 

25 ft (8 m) above the trackway. The dominant component of the catenary is the poles that support the 

cables. The composition of the poles would determine their overall visual impact. Both steel and 

concrete poles are common. The steel poles can be solid or a steel lattice. They may be galvanized or 

painted. Concrete poles are typically round and a gray concrete color. Their primary visual impact is low, 

much like the powerpoles along a highway. 

The entire HST would be fenced. The typical fence would be an 8 ft (2.5 m) chain-link fence. The fence 

would run along the edge of the right-of-way, which would usually place it 2 to 3 ft (0.7 to 1 m) below 

the level of the tracks. From a distance, the visual impact of the fence would be less than the catenary. 

Where the railway would run through populated areas, enhanced fencing may be used, including vinylcoated chain-link fencing or decorative iron fencing. Specific decisions regarding fencing types would be 

made later in the design process. 

Sound barriers would be built along the railway where the noise of the railway needs to be mitigated, due 

to the land uses along the line. Typical sound barriers are built from masonry or pre-cast concrete and 

are approximately 8 ft to 12 ft (2.5 to 3.8 m) tall, although other materials and heights are used, 

including low walls designed to conceal wheel noise and barriers made of prefabricated metal or wooden 

panels. Typically, the walls run close to the trackway, not at the edge of the right-of-way. The sound 

barriers would mask most of the HST from outside the right-of-way, becoming the dominant visual 

feature of the railway from a close vantage point. As with highway soundwalls, landscaping, or berming, 

the walls can reduce their visual impact. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.9 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.9-37

Electrical substations to distribute power from the commercial power grid to the railway would be 

necessary about every 15 to 30 mi (24 to 48 km). The substations would be approximately 15,000 sq ft 

(1,560 m2

). The installation would be surrounded by fencing or noise barriers, depending on location, 

and would have the same visual impacts as the line fencing/sound barriers noted above. 

3.9.6 CEQA Significance Conclusions and Mitigation Strategies 

Based on the analysis above and summarized in Table 3.9.1, each of the alignment alternatives would 

have potentially significant impacts on aesthetics from the introduction of the HST system into the visual 

landscape in the study area. The station location options that would, at a programmatic level, present 

potentially significant impacts on aesthetics include Pleasanton (I-680/Bernal Road), Pleasanton (BART), 

Livermore (I-580), Livermore (I-580 Greenville Road), Tracy (Downtown), Tracy (ACE), Union City 

(Shinn), and San Jose (Diridon). The HST Alignment Alternatives and station location options would also 

create construction-related short-term visual changes that are not considered significant at the 

programmatic level. 

Mitigation strategies, as well as the design practices discussed in Section 3.9.5, can be refined and 

applied at the project level to reduce these impacts. Refinement of mitigation strategies would take 

place in consultation with the appropriate local and regional agencies and with the public. Mitigation 

measures would be implemented as feasible. These strategies include: 

• At the project level, design proposed facilities that are attractive in their own right and that would 

integrate well into landscape contexts so as to reduce potential view blockage, contrast with existing 

landscape settings, light and shadow effects, and other potential visual impacts. 

• Design bridges and elevated guideways with graceful lines and minimal apparent bulk and shading 

effects. 

• Design elevated guideways, stations, and parking structures with sensitivity to the context, using 

exterior materials, colors, textures, and design details that are compatible with patterns in the 

surrounding natural and built environment and that minimize the contrast of the structures with their 

surroundings. 

• Use neutral colors and dulled finishes that minimize reflectivity for catenary support structures, and 

design them to fit the context of the specific locale. 

• Use aesthetically appropriate fencing along rights-of-way, including decorative fencing, where 

appropriate, and use dark and non-reflective colors for fencing to reduce visual contrast. 

• Where at-grade or depressed route segments pass through or along the edge of residential areas or 

heavily traveled roadways, install landscape treatments along the edge of the right-of-way to provide 

partial screening and to visually integrate the right-of-way into the residential context. 

• Use the minimum amount of night lighting consistent with that necessary for operations and safety. 

• Use shielded and hooded outdoor lighting directed to the area where the lighting is required, and use 

sensors and timers for lights not required to be on all of the time. 

• Design stations to minimize potential shadow impacts on adjacent pedestrian areas, parks, and 

residential areas, and site all structures in a way that minimizes shadow effects on sensitive portions 

of the surrounding area. 

• Seed and plant areas outside the operating rail trackbed that are disturbed by cut, fill, or grading to 

blend with surrounding vegetated areas where the land will support plants. Use native vegetation in 

appropriate locations and densities. 

• Use strategic plantings of fast-growing trees to provide partial or full screening of elevated guideways 

where they are close to residential areas, parks, and public open spaces. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.9 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.9-38

• Where elevated guideways are located down the median strips or along the edge of freeways or 

major roadways, use appropriate landscaping of the area under the guideway to provide a high level 

of visual interest. Landscaping in these areas should use attractive shrubs and groundcovers, and 

emphasize the use of low-growing species to minimize any additional shadow effects or blockage of 

views. 

• Plan hours of construction operations and locate staging sites to minimize impacts to adjacent 

residents and businesses. 

• Screen construction sites, as appropriate, to minimize visual construction impacts. 

While the mitigation strategies described above would substantially lessen impacts to aesthetics and 

visual resources, it is uncertain at this program level that these impacts can be mitigated to a less-thansignificant level for each of the alternative alignments or station location options. This is of greatest 

concern in areas where changes in scenic open space and mountain crossing areas are anticipated. As 

part of site-specific designs, many of the impacts on aesthetics and visual resources can be avoided or 

substantially mitigated. However, because of the size of the project and the variety of types of terrain it 

affects in the study area, there is insufficient evidence to make that determination at this stage of design. 

Therefore, for purposes of this Program EIR/EIS, this impact is considered significant and unavoidable. 

Additional environmental assessment would allow a more precise evaluation in the second tier projectlevel environmental analyses. 

3.9.7 Subsequent Analysis 

Specific analyses that would be appropriate for project-level environmental evaluation are discussed 

below. 

• Detailed analyses should be performed, particularly in areas with elevated structures, to identify 

potential visual intrusions into residential and park and open space areas. These analyses should 

focus on identifying the potential for blockage of valued views; the areas where shadows would be 

cast on residential and open space lands; and the areas where the scale, form, line, and color of 

project facilities would substantially alter the existing character and quality of the setting. In addition 

to producing a detailed inventory of site-specific impacts, this analysis would serve as the basis for 

identifying areas where project siting adjustments, design modifications, landscaping, and other 

mitigation measures may be incorporated to reduce potentially considerable impacts to a low level. 

• Review of local urban design plans and policies should be conducted to take into account local design 

objectives. The analyses would provide a basis for considering specific design measures that would 

modify the impacts of the project in ways that would make the project design more consistent with 

local urban design goals. 

• An analysis should focus on the portions of alignment that would be located adjacent to and down 

the median strip of freeways. 

• For each of the proposed station location options, further analyses should be conducted in 

consultation with local agencies to develop an understanding of the relationship of the proposed 

station architecture, parking lots, lighting systems, and other features to the surrounding natural and 

built setting and surrounding historic context. The analyses should identify the potential for blockage 

of valued views; the areas where shadows would be cast; and the areas where the scale, form, line, 

and color of project facilities could be designed to blend with the surrounding landscape. The 

analyses would be used to provide a basis for considering specific measures that could be integrated 

into the final station designs to reduce the visual impacts of the stations on their surroundings. 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.10-1

3.10 Public Utilities 

This section describes certain representative public utilities in study area and identifies the potential for 

impacts on utility systems for the various HST Alignment Alternatives1

. The public utilities evaluated in 

this section are electrical transmission lines, natural gas facilities, and wastewater treatment facilities. A 

potential utility impact is any potential conflict between an alignment alternative or station location option 

and a utility, including crossings, regardless of depth or height. 

3.10.1 Regulatory Requirements and Methods of Evaluation 

A. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Under the CWA, the EPA was granted authority to implement pollution control programs, such as 

setting wastewater standards for industry. The CWA established the basic structure for regulating 

discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States; in addition, it contains requirements to 

set water quality standards for all contaminants in surface waters. The CWA created the National 

Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program to regulate the discharge of any 

pollutant from a point source into navigable waters by requiring those point sources to obtain a 

permit if their discharges go directly to surface waters. 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation

The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, is 

responsible for carrying out the duties regarding pipeline safety set forth in 49 U.S.C. § 60101 et seq. 

and 49 C.F.R. § 190.1. The regulations apply to the owners and operators of the facilities and cover 

the design, installation, inspection, emergency plans and procedures, testing, construction, extension, 

operation, replacement, and maintenance of pipeline facilities transporting oil, gas, and hazardous 

liquid. The regulations require operators of gas pipelines to participate in a public safety program, 

such as a one-call system that would notify the operator of any proposed demolition, excavation, 

tunneling, or construction that would take place near or affect the facility. 

California State Water Resources Control Board 

The California State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) and the nine California 

Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) are responsible for developing and enforcing water 

quality objectives and implementation plans that best protect the beneficial uses of the state's 

waters. Both the state and regional agencies regulate wastewater through the issuance of 

wastewater discharge standards that are implemented through NPDES permits and waste discharge 

requirements issued by the RWQCBs. 

California Public Utilities Commission

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) regulates the provision of privately owned utilities in 

California. These utilities include privately owned telecommunications, electric, natural gas, water, 

railroad, rail transit, and passenger transportation companies. The CPUC is responsible for ensuring 

that California utility customers have safe, reliable utility services at reasonable rates; protecting 

utility customers from fraud; and promoting the health of California’s economy. The CPUC does not 

issue permits for proposed projects that would cross utility lines. The CPUC does, however, regulate 

at-grade rail crossings.

 

1

 See Section 3.0, Introduction, for an explanation of how this section fits together with the HST Network Alternatives presented in 

Chapter 7, as well as for an overview of the information presented in the other chapters. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.10 Public Utilities 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.10-2

Office of the State Fire Marshall

The Office of the State Fire Marshall, Pipeline Safety Division, regulates the safety of approximately 

5,500 mi (8,851 km) of intrastate hazardous liquid (e.g., oil, gas) transportation pipelines and acts as 

an agent of the Federal Office of Pipeline Safety concerning the inspection of more than 2,000 mi 

(3,219 km) of interstate pipelines. Pipeline safety staff inspect, test, and investigate to ensure 

compliance with federal and state pipeline safety laws and regulations. Spills, ruptures, fires, and 

similar incidents are responded to immediately; all such accidents are investigated for cause. 

B. METHOD OF EVALUATION OF IMPACTS 

The following methods were used to gather information for each area or subarea within the broadly 

defined study area. 

• Review of the project’s GIS to identify cities and counties in the study area. 

• Review of the general plans for potentially affected communities in each subregion of the corridor 

in which proposed alternatives are being studied, as well as maps from the Thomas Bros. 

California Atlas and from the California State Automobile Association. 

• Review of project alignments/proposed improvements against GIS information of electrical 

transmission lines and gas and oil pipelines compiled using MapSearch. 

• Exploration of Web sites of the GIS-identified cities and counties in the study area to gather 

appropriate setting information. 

• Examination of applicable utility system maps and Web sites to gain a better understanding of 

facility distribution. 

• Contact with public utility providers via mail to obtain or confirm the locations of their current and 

planned services and facilities in the study area. 

Public utilities generally include a range of services, such as water, power, sewage, and 

communications systems. For the purposes of this analysis, three of the most common major 

facilities that may pose construction challenges were identified to best represent potential utility 

impacts. These facilities not only provide critical services, but they also are likely to create a hazard 

if damaged during construction operations. 

• Electrical facilities are defined as major transmission lines and substations that meet or exceed a 

power rating of 230 kV. 

• Natural gas facilities are defined as high-pressure gas pipelines and facilities of various sizes. 

• Wastewater treatment facilities are defined as wastewater pipelines with a minimum 36-in (91-

centimeter [cm]) diameter and any treatment facilities located in the project corridor. 

The methods used to assess potential conflicts (any crossing or longitudinal encroachment of an 

existing utility by a portion of the HST system) included overlaying the available utility maps with the 

alignment alternatives and identifying facilities within 100 ft (30 m) of the centerline of the proposed 

alignment alternatives. The tally of representative utility conflicts generally indicates degree of 

difficulty in construction or level of expense related to avoiding or relocating utilities. Because public 

utilities are prevalent throughout the study area, it was not practical to assess each potential conflict. 

Rather, the relative impact for purposes of comparing the alignment alternatives was determined by 

quantifying the number and type of potential conflicts for each alternative. In addition, a qualitative 

ranking of high, medium, or low was assigned to describe the potential severity of the conflict, as 

described below and summarized in Table 3.10-1. Low- and medium-ranking conflicts would be 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.10 Public Utilities 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.10-3

considered less than significant in nature, and those conflicts ranked high would be considered 

significant. 

Electric transmission lines, telecommunications lines, natural gas pipelines, and wastewater pipelines 

likely would be affected little by an HST Alignment Alternative because, with relatively minimal 

disruption or construction impacts, they could be avoided, minimized, or mitigated by routing either 

the public utility or the transportation improvement around, over, or under the facility. Where 

unavoidable, relocations of the utilities would not pose adverse environmental risks, based on current 

construction practices. However, they do represent additional project-related costs. 

Fixed facilities, such as electrical substations or power stations and wastewater treatment plants, 

would be more likely to be affected by an HST Alignment Alternative because they could require 

more considerable engineering, design, and construction to avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential 

conflicts. These types of fixed facilities have more significant constraints regarding any potential 

conflict, such as routing the transportation improvement around, over, or under the facility or 

relocating the fixed facility to another location. 

Table 3.10-1 

Rankings for Potential Public Utilities Impacts/Conflicts 

 Electrical Facilities Natural Gas Lines Waste Treatment Facilities 

Low No 230-kV or greater 

facility within study area 

1 to 15 total gas lines 

within study area 

No wastewater pipelines of 36-in 

(91-cm) diameter or greater or 

treatment facilities within study 

area 

Medium N/A 16 to 30 total gas lines 

within study area 

N/A 

High One or more 230-kV 

substation, power station, 

or greater facility within 

study area 

31 or more total gas 

lines within study area 

Wastewater pipelines of 36-in (91-

cm) diameter or greater or 

treatment facilities within study 

area 

N/A = not available. There is no medium rating for this category; impacts are either low (no facilities in the 

alignment alternative) or high (one facility or more in the alignment alternative). 

The analysis indicated that, with regard to potential conflicts with utilities, there are differences 

among the HST Alignment Alternatives. The greatest number of potential conflicts can be found in 

the East Bay to Central Valley corridor. A high-impact level of severity also can occur in the 

alignment alternatives of the Oakland to San Jose, San Jose to Central Valley, and Central Valley 

corridors. The alignment alternatives in both the San Francisco Bay Crossings corridor and San 

Francisco to San Jose Alignment corridor are considered to have a low-impact level of severity 

because of the lower number of potential conflicts. Although there are differences among the 

alternative alignments, the overall assessment of impacts on utility systems is considered similar for 

all alternative alignments because utilities generally do not present significant potential impacts that 

cannot be avoided, minimized, or mitigated through conventional design and construction processes. 

For instance, most potential conflicts typically would be identified during the design or construction 

stage of a project, and standard measures would be taken to minimize costs and disruption of 

service. 

C. CEQA SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA 

For purposes of this discussion, an HST Alignment Alternative would be considered to result in a 

significant effect on utilities and service systems if it would result in a high-impact conflict. A highimpact conflict would occur where an alignment alternative would cross or conflict with a fixed facility 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.10 Public Utilities 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.10-4

such as an electrical substation or wastewater treatment plant. Low-impact conflicts would occur if 

an alignment alternative would cross or conflict with pipelines or transmission lines, which are easier 

to avoid or relocate. Low-impact conflicts are considered less-than-significant impacts on utilities and 

service systems. 

According to the State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, a project would also have a significant impact on 

utilities and service systems if it would: 

• Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable RWQCB. 

• Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion 

of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. 

• Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of 

existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. 

• Need new or expanded entitlements to supply water to the project. 

• Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the 

project that it does not have adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in 

addition to its existing commitments. 

• Be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid 

waste disposal needs. 

• Not comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. 

These Appendix G significance criteria address the issue of utilities’ capacity. These criteria have 

been used to evaluate impacts of the HST Alignment Alternatives in the areas of energy, land use 

and planning, hazardous materials and wastes, and hydrology and water resources. The discussion 

of these areas can be found in Sections 3.5, 3.7, 3.11, and 3.14. Potential indirect effects associated 

with growth accompanying the implementation of an HST system alternative are addressed in 

Chapter 7. 

3.10.2 Affected Environment 

A. STUDY AREA DEFINED 

The study area for public utilities is the area within 100 ft (30 m) of the centerline of each alignment, 

and 100 ft (30 m) around stations. The study area is located generally within developed and 

urbanized areas throughout the Bay Area and Central Valley. These areas typically include various 

underground, at-grade, and elevated utilities that provide water, power, natural gas, 

communications, and sewage service for residential, business, and manufacturing uses and for 

agricultural practices. The following section provides additional information on utility resources. 

B. PUBLIC UTILITIES BY PROVIDERS AND RESOURCES 

The key service providers of the representative utility services in the study area are summarized 

below. A complete description of these providers and resources is provided in Appendix 3.10-A. 

• Electrical facilities—Providers include PG&E, Silicon Valley Power, and City of Palo Alto Utilities 

(CPAU). There are two power-generating facilities in the region (Santa Clara power plant and 

Gilroy Cogeneration Plant LP). 

• Natural gas facilities—Provided by PG&E except in the city of Palo Alto. In Palo Alto, CPAU gas is 

purchased from commodity suppliers and transported via PG&E’s system to CPAU’s distribution 

system. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.10 Public Utilities 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.10-5

• Wastewater treatment and water—Wastewater treatment services are provided by cities, 

counties, and special agencies along alignments in the study area. Water and reclaimed water 

pipelines are owned and operated by numerous jurisdictions throughout the study area with 

more lines found in the more urbanized areas. 

3.10.3 Environmental Consequences 

A. NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE 

The existing conditions assume the continued operation of the transportation and public utilities 

infrastructure described above. The No Project Alternative assumes that, in addition to existing 

conditions, other transportation and utility improvements would be developed and operational by 

2030. The transportation improvements include projects that are programmed or funded to 2030 (as 

described in Chapter 2). 

It was not possible as part of this study to identify or quantify the utility improvements expected to 

occur by 2030. Rather, it is assumed that utility development would occur to meet projected demand 

and growth characteristics near proposed HST Alignment Alternatives and station location options. 

For existing transportation facilities, conflicts with electrical transmission lines, natural gas pipelines, 

oil pipelines, wastewater and water utilities, and other utilities have been addressed previously, and 

few additional or increased impacts are expected from the future transportation improvement 

included in the No Project Alternative. In addition, it is assumed that measures would be taken to 

avoid these potential conflicts to the extent feasible and practical and to greatly limit any potential 

additional costs or disruption of service. It is common practice to coordinate on site with utility 

representatives during construction in the vicinity of critical infrastructure, such as high-voltage 

overhead/underground transmission lines, high-pressure gas pipelines, and aqueduct canals. Also, 

future transportation or utility improvements would be expected to be analyzed in a project-level 

environmental document, which would incorporate feasible measures to mitigate potentially 

significant adverse environmental impacts. 

Based on the above assumptions, the existing conditions of the No Project Alternative are used to 

provide the baseline for analysis of potential conflicts with utilities.

B. HIGH-SPEED TRAIN SYSTEM ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES 

Existing conditions from the No Project Alternative provide the baseline condition. Improvements 

associated with the proposed HST Alignment Alternatives and station location options would result in 

potential impacts in addition to those resulting from the No Project Alternative. For the purposes of 

this analysis, the existing conditions are treated as representative of the No Project Alternative, and 

the analysis summarizes the relative differences between the existing conditions and HST Alignment 

Alternatives. Table 3.10-2 shows the number of potential utility conflicts for the alignment 

alternatives, by corridor, of the proposed HST routes. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.10 Public Utilities 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.10-6

Table 3.10-2. Public Utilities Summary Data Table for 

Alignment Alternatives and Station Location Option Comparisons 

Corridor 

Possible Alignments 

Alignment 

Alternative 

Number of 

Electrical 

Transmission 

Lines 

Number of 

Electrical 

Substations or 

Power Stations 

Number of 

Natural Gas 

Pipelines 

San 

Francisco to 

San Jose: 

Caltrain 

1 of 1 San Francisco to 

Dumbarton 

0 0 22 

1 of 1 Dumbarton to San Jose 0 0 8 

Station Location Options 

Transbay Transit Center 0 0 0 

4th and King (Caltrain) 0 0 0 

Millbrae/SFO 0 0 0 

Redwood City (Caltrain) 0 0 0 

Palo Alto (Caltrain) 0 0 0 

Oakland to 

San Jose: 

Niles/I-880 

1 of 2 West Oakland to Niles 

Junction 

0 0 12 

12th Street/City Center 

to Niles Junction 

0 0 13 

1 of 2 Niles Junction to San 

Jose via Trimble 

0 0 14 

Niles Junction to San 

Jose via I-880 

0 1 11 

Station Location Options 

West Oakland/7th Street 0 0 0 

12th Street/City Center 0 0 0 

Coliseum/Airport 0 0 0 

Union City (BART) 0 0 0 

Fremont (Warm Springs) 0 0 0 

San Jose to 

Central 

Valley: 

Pacheco Pass 

1 of 1 Pacheco 2 0 14 

1 of 3 Henry Miller (UPRR 

Connection) 

1 0 8 

Henry Miller (BNSF 

Connection)

2 0 6 

GEA North 1 0 14 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.10 Public Utilities 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.10-7

Corridor 

Possible Alignments 

Alignment 

Alternative 

Number of 

Electrical 

Transmission 

Lines 

Number of 

Electrical 

Substations or 

Power Stations 

Number of 

Natural Gas 

Pipelines 

Station Location Options 

San Jose (Diridon) 0 0 0 

Morgan Hill (Caltrain) 0 0 0 

Gilroy (Caltrain) 0 0 0 

East Bay to 

Central 

Valley: 

Altamont 

Pass

1 of 4 I-680/ 580/UPRR 1 1 6 

I-580/ UPRR 1 1 7 

Patterson Pass/UPRR 1 0 6 

UPRR 1 0 6 

1 of 4 Tracy Downtown (BNSF 

Connection) 

1 0 13 

Tracy ACE Station 

(BNSF Connection) 

1 1 12 

Tracy ACE Station 

(UPRR Connection) 

1 1 12 

Tracy Downtown (UPRR 

Connection) 

1 0 15 

2 of 2 East Bay Connections 0 0 0 

Station Location Options 

Pleasanton (I-680/Bernal Rd) 0 0 0 

Pleasanton (BART) 0 0 0 

Livermore (Downtown) 0 0 0 

Livermore (I-580) 0 0 0 

Livermore (Greenville Road/UPRR) 0 0 0 

Livermore (Greenville Road/I-580) 0 0 0 

Tracy (Downtown) 0 0 0 

Tracy (ACE) 0 0 0 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.10 Public Utilities 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.10-8

Corridor 

Possible Alignments 

Alignment 

Alternative 

Number of 

Electrical 

Transmission 

Lines 

Number of 

Electrical 

Substations or 

Power Stations 

Number of 

Natural Gas 

Pipelines 

San 

Francisco 

Bay 

Crossings 

1 of 2 Trans Bay Crossing—

Transbay Transit Center 

0 0 1 

Trans Bay Crossing—4th

& King 

0 0 3 

1 of 6 

Dumbarton (High 

Bridge) 

0 0 1 

Dumbarton 

(Low Bridge) 

0 0 1 

Dumbarton (Tube) 0 0 1 

Fremont Central Park 

(High Bridge) 

0 0 5 

Fremont Central Park 

(Low Bridge) 

0 0 5 

Fremont Central Park 

(Tube) 

0 0 5 

Station Location Options 

Union City (Shinn) 0 0 0 

Central 

Valley 

1 of 6 

BNSF—UPRR 0 1 7 

BNSF 2 1 7 

UPRR N/S 0 1 23 

BNSF Castle 3 1 7 

UPRR—BNSF Castle 3 1 18 

UPRR—BNSF 0 1 18 

Station Location Options 

Modesto (Downtown) 0 0 0 

Briggsmore (Amtrak) 0 0 0 

Merced (Downtown) 0 0 0 

Castle AFB 0 0 0 

The key findings of the utilities analysis by corridor and alignment alternative are summarized below. 

For a complete summary of all utility conflicts by segment see Appendix 3.10-B. 

San Francisco to San Jose

• No conflicts with electrical transmission lines or electrical substations or power stations. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.10 Public Utilities 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.10-9

• Thirty potential conflicts with natural gas pipelines along the corridor, with half of these conflicts 

occurring in the area between the station at 4th and Townsend Streets and the Millbrae/San 

Francisco International Airport station. The total number of conflicts for this corridor is 

considered a low-impact level of severity. 

• No potential utility conflicts associated with the proposed stations in this corridor. 

Oakland to San Jose

• Thirty potential conflicts with natural gas pipelines in this corridor. The total number of conflicts 

for this corridor would be considered a low-impact level of severity. 

• One potential conflict is noted with the PG&E San Jose Substation B, which is located immediately 

adjacent to the proposed HST tracks on the I-880 alignment alternative between Trimble Road 

and Diridon Station (Niles/I-880 7A). This potential conflict is considered a high-impact level of 

severity. 

• No potential utility conflicts associated with the proposed stations in this corridor. 

San Jose to Central Valley

• A maximum of 28 natural gas pipeline conflicts and four electrical transmission line conflicts 

throughout the San Jose to Central Valley corridor. The total number of conflicts for this corridor 

is considered a high-impact level of severity. 

• The Pacheco Pass alignment alternative has the most conflicts in the corridor, with 14 natural gas 

pipeline conflicts and two transmission line conflicts. 

• Of the two east/west alignment alternatives, the GEA North alignment alternative has more total 

conflicts than the Henry Miller with 14 natural gas pipeline and one electrical transmission line 

conflicts. 

• No potential utility conflicts associated with the proposed stations in this corridor. 

East Bay to Central Valley

• A maximum of 22 potential natural gas pipeline conflicts, two transmission line conflicts, and two 

electrical substation/power station conflicts. The total number of conflicts would be considered a 

high-impact level of severity. 

• Tracy Downtown alignment alternative has the most utility conflicts, with a maximum of 16. 

• Two substations located in the vicinity of the proposed alignments—the Kaiser PG&E substation 

just east of Dublin and the Clavo PG&E substation located east of Tracy. 

• No potential utility conflicts associated with the proposed stations in this corridor. 

San Francisco Bay Crossings

• A maximum of eight natural gas pipeline conflicts associated with this corridor. This number of 

conflicts would be considered a low-impact level of severity. 

• No potential utility conflicts associated with the proposed stations in this corridor. 

Central Valley

• A maximum of 23 natural gas pipeline conflicts, one electrical substation/power station potential 

conflict, and three electrical transmission line conflicts throughout the Central Valley corridor. 

The total number of conflicts in this corridor would be considered a high-impact level of severity. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.10 Public Utilities 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.10-10

• UPRR N/S alignment alternative has the most conflicts with 23 natural gas pipeline conflicts and 

one substation conflict. 

• No potential utility conflicts associated with the proposed stations in this corridor. 

3.10.4 Role of Design Practices in Avoiding and Minimizing Effects 

The public utilities impact analysis is programmatic and addresses only representative utilities; it does not 

address all utilities and does not address local details. Project-level analysis would address all utilities 

and local issues once the alignments are more defined. The Authority plans to avoid potential conflicts to 

the extent feasible and practical and to greatly limit any potential additional costs or disruption. It is 

common practice to coordinate on site with utility representatives during construction in the vicinity of 

critical infrastructure, such as high-voltage overhead/underground transmission lines, high-pressure gas 

pipelines, and aqueduct canals. Also, future transportation or utility improvements would be analyzed at 

the project-level environmental review, along with feasible measures to mitigate potentially significant 

adverse environmental impacts. 

Design features to avoid the potential utility conflicts associated with the HST Alignment Alternatives 

include (i.e., are not limited to) the following features. 

• During final design, adjustments could be made to the HST alignments and profiles to avoid major 

utility lines or facilities. 

• The Authority could relocate transmission lines or substations. 

3.10.5 Mitigation Strategies and CEQA Significance Conclusions 

Based on the analysis above, most of the HST Alignment Alternatives would result in high-impact conflicts 

and would therefore have significant impacts on utilities and service systems. All the alignment 

alternatives would also result in low-impact conflicts, which are considered less-than-significant impacts 

on utilities and service systems. All potential conflicts will be reviewed during the more detailed projectlevel environmental analysis and during final design. The Authority will consult with the various utility 

providers during the detailed project-level analysis to minimize potential conflicts. 

Proposed general mitigation strategies for potential utility conflicts first focus on avoidance of potential 

conflicts. If conflicts are unavoidable, the next strategy focuses on reducing and minimizing the potential 

impact. The mitigation strategies are similar for all alignment alternatives and would be refined during 

subsequent project-specific review. 

For large utilities, such as wastewater treatment facilities, electrical substations, and pipelines, the 

strategy would be first to avoid crossing or using any of the utility right-of-way or facility footprint as the 

project-specific review proceeds and as engineering designs are refined. Avoidance opportunities include 

consideration of modifying both the horizontal and vertical profiles of the proposed transportation 

improvements. 

During final design, the Authority will consult with each utility provider/owner to avoid or reduce potential 

impacts on existing and planned utilities through design refinements. If avoidance is not feasible and 

adjustment of alignments has not removed the potential conflict, relocation/reconstruction/restoration of 

the utility would be considered, in close consultation and coordination with the utility owner, as a second 

mitigation strategy. This type of mitigation could include combining several utilities into a single utility 

corridor, relocation, or reconstruction. Where feasible and cost-effective, consolidating several utilities, 

primarily underground electrical and communications utilities, into one conduit should be considered 

during utility relocation planning. The co-lead agencies will comply with the requirements of the Uniform 

Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 in the acquisition of all property 

necessary for the proposed HST system. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.10 Public Utilities 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.10-11

Based on the program-level analysis, and in accordance with the CEQA Appendix G thresholds of 

significance for public utilities and service systems, the HST system alternative would result in a 

significant impact on utilities and utility services in the study region, although implementation of the 

above design features and mitigation strategies is expected to reduce impacts on utilities and service 

systems to a less-than-significant level at the program-level. Additional environmental assessment will 

allow more precise evaluation in the second-tier, project-level of environmental analysis. 

Based on the review of the Appendix G thresholds at the program level in this analysis, the proposed HST 

system would not result in a significant increase in demand for, or significant impacts on, public utility 

services, and thus would have a less-than-significant impact on utility services and utility capacities. This 

conclusion is based on consideration of the areas enumerated in the Appendix G thresholds and a 

number of factors. These factors include the phased implementation and long construction period 

projected for the HST system, the expectation that the HST system would not generate such significant 

growth as to result in great demand increases for utility services, and the expectation that such growth 

and the indirect effects of such growth would be distributed across various communities. In general, 

growth would be reflected in infill development and increased development densities near HST stations 

and would occur over a time frame consistent with the planning horizons for, and within the purview of, 

the local and regional agencies that provide such services. 

3.10.6 Subsequent Analysis 

As previously mentioned, the public utilities impact analysis is programmatic and addresses only 

representative utilities; it does not address all utilities and does not address local details. Project-level 

analysis would address all utilities and local issues once the alternative alignment for the Bay Area to 

Central Valley corridor is selected. Project-level environmental documentation and subsequent planning 

documents will identify precise utility locations and will analyze in more detail conflicts between the HST 

system and the following utilities: 

• Water supply lines. 

• Wastewater conveyance lines. 

• Wastewater and water pump stations. 

• Storm drains. 

• Fiber-optic lines. 

• Telecommunication lines. 

• Other utilities and pipelines likely to be crossed or conflict with the various alignment alternatives, 

including liquid petroleum and crude oil pipelines. 

Project-level environmental documentation will also include a more detailed discussion of the capacity of 

existing utilities to serve the HST system’s needs. The energy supply needs from the electricity grid will 

be considered segment by segment in order to ensure that demand from the HST system is managed 

and that adequate capacity will be available to serve the system. The project level analysis will also 

consider the utility services of the proposed HST stations and in the station area planning, where growth 

patterns, infill densities, and services for the both the HST system and community will be addressed. 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.11-1

3.11 Hazardous Materials and Wastes 

This section describes the issues associated with hazardous materials and wastes in the project area and 

the potential for impacts in areas that may be contaminated with hazardous materials or wastes. 

According to Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) § 66261, waste is considered hazardous 

if it exhibits at least one of the four characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity, or if it 

is a “listed waste.” Waste can be liquid, semisolid, or gaseous. Known areas containing significant 

hazardous materials and wastes resulting in contaminated sites have been identified on the list of 

California’s high-priority Annual Work Plan (AWP) sites, list of solid waste landfill (SWLF) sites, and the 

National Priorities List (NPL)/Superfund. For this document, these lists are the basis for identifying major 

contaminated sites within the program region and evaluating potential impacts on humans and the 

natural environment from exposure to hazardous materials or wastes. 

Potential impacts associated with the No Project Alternative, the HST Alignment Alternatives, and station 

location and maintenance facility options are described1

. Construction and operation of the HST system 

could cause impacts to existing hazardous materials or waste sites. For this programmatic analysis, a 

potential hazardous waste impact is considered wherever the route of a proposed alignment or location 

of an HST station or maintenance facility conflicts with a known contaminated site or construction or 

when maintenance activities associated with a project alternative causes an increase in transportation 

and/or storage of hazardous materials or waste. The sites that pose the greatest concern are those with 

soil or groundwater contamination within or adjacent to the right-of-way for a proposed alignment or a 

station location option, and those with groundwater contamination near areas where excavation down to 

groundwater would be necessary. An overview of hazardous material/waste impacts is presented below. 

An analysis of the potential impacts by alignment alternative is presented in Section 3.11.3. 

Potential HST hazardous material and waste impacts that could occur in the study area are listed below. 

• An HST Alignment Alternative could cause ground disturbance (including disturbance of groundwater 

or surface water) near a known contaminated site during construction, operation, or maintenance 

activities and expose workers or the public to hazards from a known hazardous materials/waste site. 

• An HST Alignment Alternative could cause ground disturbance (including disturbance of groundwater 

or surface water) where contamination could exist (e.g., aerially deposited lead [ADL], lead-based 

paint [LBP], petroleum hydrocarbon–affected soil and groundwater, and naturally occurring asbestos 

[NOA]) during construction, operation, or maintenance activities. 

• An HST Alignment Alternative could increase transport, use, storage, or disposal of hazardous 

materials that is not in accordance with state and federal hazardous materials or waste regulation 

during construction, operation, or maintenance activities. 

3.11.1 Regulatory Requirements and Methods of Evaluation 

A. REGULATORY 

California’s hazardous materials regulations for the discovery of hazardous substances in the 

subsurface during construction and the disposal of hazardous materials and cleanup of the hazards 

area incorporate most federal hazardous materials regulations. The most relevant federal regulations 

are described below. 

 

1

 See Section 3.0, Introduction, for an explanation of how this section fits together with the HST Network Alternatives presented in 

Chapter 7, as well as for an overview of the information presented in the other chapters. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.11 Hazardous Materials and Wastes 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.11-2

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)

RCRA governs the disposal of solid and hazardous waste. Congress passed RCRA on October 21, 

1976, to address the national problem with the growing volume of municipal and industrial waste. 

RCRA, which amended the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965, set national goals for protecting human 

health and the environment from the potential hazards of waste disposal, conserving energy and 

natural resources, reducing the amount of waste generated, and ensuring that wastes would be 

managed in an environmentally sound manner. The hazardous waste program, under RCRA 

Subtitle C, establishes a system for controlling hazardous waste from the time it is generated until its 

ultimate disposal—in effect, from “cradle to grave.” The underground storage tank (UST) program, 

under RCRA Subtitle I, regulates underground storage tanks containing hazardous substances and 

petroleum products. The EPA has primary responsibility for implementing RCRA, but individual states 

are encouraged to seek authorization to implement some or all RCRA provisions. California received 

authorization to implement RCRA in August 1992. 

Comprehensive Environmental Response and Liability Act (CERCLA)

CERCLA, also known as Superfund, was enacted by Congress on December 11, 1980. CERCLA 

provided a basis for taxing chemical and petroleum manufacturers and provided federal authority to 

respond directly to releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances that may endanger 

public health or the environment. CERCLA established prohibitions and requirements concerning 

closed and abandoned hazardous waste sites, provided for liability of persons responsible for releases 

of hazardous waste at these sites, and established a trust fund using collected taxes to provide for 

cleanup when no responsible party could be identified. Two types of response actions were 

authorized under CERCLA: short-term removal actions and long-term remedial response actions, 

although these actions can be conducted only at sites listed on EPA's NPL. 

CERCLA also enabled the revision of the National Contingency Plan (NCP). The NCP provided the 

guidelines and procedures needed to respond to releases and threatened releases of hazardous 

substances, pollutants, or contaminants. The NCP also established the NPL. CERCLA was amended 

by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) on October 17, 1986. 

Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act, Title 42—The Public Health and Welfare, Chapter 63—

Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention

This federal law prohibited the use of lead-based paint after 1971. For projects involving 

construction of transportation corridors, contamination resulting from LBP is a frequent hazardous 

waste issue and may be unknown until testing is performed. Lead was used historically as a pigment 

and drying agent in oil-based paint. Although the legal limit for lead concentrations in paint was 

lowered to 0.06% (a trace amount) in 1978 by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and 

was lowered voluntarily by some manufacturers prior to that, many structures built prior to the 1980s 

may still contain undercoats of LBP. Additionally, weathering and routine maintenance of paint on 

buildings may contaminate nearby soils with lead. Leaded gasoline was used as a vehicle fuel in the 

United States from the 1920s until the late 1980s. Although lead is no longer used in gasoline 

formulations, lead emissions from automobiles are a recognized source of contamination in soils 

along roadways. Surface and near-surface soils along heavily used roadways have the potential to 

contain elevated concentrations of lead of several hundred milligrams per kilogram. 

California’s statutes and regulations on hazardous materials are described below. 

Health and Safety Code §25100 to §25250.28 and Title 22 C.C.R., Div. 4.5 

These codes contain regulations adopted and administered by the California Environmental Protection 

Agency’s (CalEPA’s) Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). Both the California Health and 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.11 Hazardous Materials and Wastes 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.11-3

Safety Code and Title 22 C.C.R. require that hazardous waste be managed according to applicable 

regulations, which include worker operational safety procedures as identified in Title 8 C.C.R.; 

handling, storage, and exposure requirements; transportation and disposal requirements under a 

uniform hazardous waste manifest; and documentation procedures. In California, waste disposal 

facilities are classified in three categories: Class I, Class II, and Class III. A Class I disposal facility 

may accept federal and state hazardous waste. Class II and Class III facilities are permitted only to 

accept nonhazardous waste at facility-specific acceptance threshold levels established by the RWQCB, 

which is the permitting agency. 

Additional federal and state regulations address worker exposure to safety and health hazards. The 

federal regulations are identified in Title 29 CFR, and the state regulations are in Title 8 C.C.R. The 

federal and California Occupational Safety and Health Administrations are the primary agencies 

responsible for enforcing these regulations. 

The DTSC is responsible for implementing RCRA. The DTSC is also responsible for implementing and 

enforcing California’s own hazardous waste laws, which are known collectively as the Hazardous 

Waste Control Law. The Hazardous Waste Control Law and its associated regulations are similar to 

RCRA but regulate more chemicals because they define hazardous waste more broadly. Hazardous 

wastes regulated by California but not by EPA are called non-RCRA hazardous wastes. 

Chapter 6.95, §25503(a), of the California Health and Safety Code and Title 19 of the C.C.R. §2729, 

et seq. 

This code requires any business that handles a hazardous material or mixture containing a hazardous 

material in reportable quantities to establish and implement a Hazardous Materials Business Plan for 

emergency response to a release or threatened release of a hazardous material. The state’s 

minimum reportable quantities are 500 pounds for a solid, 55 gallons for a liquid, and 200 cubic ft for 

a gas at standard temperature and pressure. Some acutely hazardous materials are reportable at 

much lower quantities. Counties in California have different requirements and often require 

businesses to complete a short form of the Hazardous Materials Business Plan even if they handle 

hazardous materials below the state’s reportable quantities. Businesses typically submit their plans 

to local administering agencies (e.g., the county’s Environmental Health Services Department). The 

business plan must identify the type of business, location, emergency contacts, emergency 

procedures, mitigation plans, and chemical inventory at each location. 

California’s Accidental Release Prevention Law 

Certain chemicals that could be released to the environment and affect surrounding communities are 

regulated by California’s Accidental Release Prevention Law. This state law and federal laws with 

similar provisions (i.e., the Emergency Preparedness and Community Right-to-Know Act [EPCRA] and 

the Clean Air Act) allow local oversight of both the state and federal programs. The state and federal 

laws are similar in their requirements; however, the California threshold planning quantities for 

regulated substances are lower than the federal values. Local agencies may set lower reporting 

thresholds or add chemicals to the program. Beginning in 1997, the Accidental Release Prevention 

Law has been implemented by the state’s Certified Unified Program Agencies (CUPA). Any business 

where the maximum quantity of a regulated substance exceeds the specified threshold quantities 

must register with the county health department as a manager of regulated substances. 

To operate in California, all hazardous waste transporters must be registered with the DTSC. Unless 

specifically exempted, hazardous waste transporters must comply with the California Highway Patrol 

Regulations, the California State Fire Marshal Regulations, and the United States Department of 

Transportation Regulations. In addition, hazardous waste transporters must comply with Division 20, 

Chapter 6.5, Article 6 and 13 of the California Health and Safety Code and the Title 22, Division 4.5, 

Chapter 13, of the California Code of Regulations, which are administered by DTSC. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.11 Hazardous Materials and Wastes 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.11-4

B. METHODS OF EVALUATION OF IMPACTS 

Identification of Hazardous Sites

Impacts from hazardous waste or material sites are an important consideration in the planning and 

development of any major transportation improvement project. Because remediation of 

contaminated soil and groundwater from contaminated sites can dramatically increase the overall 

cost of a project, it is important to identify the location of these sites early during the environmental 

analysis process. With this information, contaminated sites can be avoided during the project 

planning phase. Where contaminated sites cannot be avoided, early identification of these sites can 

help mitigate impacts that would have resulted in increased project costs, schedule delays, and public 

and worker safety issues. 

At this program level of analysis, only federal and state published databases containing lists of known 

and significant hazardous materials/hazardous waste sites were reviewed for potential hazardous 

materials risks. Once an HST Alignment Alternative is selected and the project-level EIR/EIS is 

prepared, these databases would be supplemented with a more detailed database search of 

hazardous materials/waste sites (e.g., the Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites [Cortese] List, 

Government Code 65962.5), including local databases, as required by CEQA. During preparation of 

the project-level EIR/EIS, the database review would also include Leaking Underground Fuel Tank 

(LUFT) site list; Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) site list; and Spill, Leak, Investigations, 

and Cleanup (SLIC) Lists. Additionally, there would be: 

• Review of historical land use for the selected alignments and corridors carried forward for 

detailed analysis. 

• Site reconnaissance. 

• Review of agency records and agency consultation. 

• Environmental data analysis and report preparation. 

For this Program EIR/EIS, the following databases were reviewed. 

Federal National Priorities List/Superfund 

This EPA-developed database lists sites that pose an immediate public health hazard and where an 

immediate response to the hazard is necessary. This database is also found in the CERCLA database, 

also known as CERCLIS (Title 42 USC Chapter 103). 

State Priority List 

Sites listed in this DTSC and RWQCB database are priority sites that were compiled from AWP and 

CAL-SITES databases, and sites where Preliminary Endangerment Assessments were conducted by 

Cal-EPA. The CAL-SITES database (often referred to as the Historical Calsites Database) is a 

database identifying past confirmed or potential hazardous substances releases. The CAL-SITES 

database is maintained by the DTSC. The AWP database lists contaminated sites authorized for 

cleanup under the Bond Expenditure Plan developed by the California Department of Health Services 

as a site-specific expenditure plan to support appropriation of Hazardous Substance Cleanup Bond 

Act funds. 

State of California Solid Waste Landfills 

The landfill sites listed in this database generally have been identified by the state as accepting solid 

wastes. This database includes open, closed, and inactive solid waste disposal facilities and transfer 

stations pursuant to the Solid Waste Management and Resource Recovery Act of 1972 and is 

maintained by the California Integrated Waste Management Board. The locations of the disposal 

facilities are primarily identified through permit applications and local enforcement agencies. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.11 Hazardous Materials and Wastes 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.11-5

Methods of Analysis

The hazardous materials and wastes analysis for this Program EIR/EIS entailed a qualitative 

comparison of potential impacts on humans and the natural environment from exposure to hazardous 

materials or wastes at known priority hazard sites. Exposure impacts are those that could result from 

proximity to or potential disturbance of sites containing these materials as a result of the No Project 

Alternative or HST Alignment Alternatives. 

As described above, the analysis was based on the results of searches of three specific databases. 

These database searches included hazardous materials/waste site location data from two different 

record searches. The first record search was conducted in 2003 by Parsons-Brinckerhoff as part of 

the Bay Area-Merced Hazardous Materials/Wastes Technical Evaluation. The second record search 

was conducted in 2006 by Parsons-Brinckerhoff as part of this Program EIR/EIS and included a 

search of alignment alternatives that had not been previously evaluated in 2003. The hazardous 

material/waste site data included in Appendix 3.11-A of this document include data from both the 

2003 and 2006 record searches. 

For this program-level analysis of potential impacts, the analysis was limited to known and major 

hazardous materials sites and hazardous waste sites that are listed on the NPL, State Priority List 

(SPL), and SWLF databases. Other types of sites, such as sites with LUSTs or small or unknown sites 

can also present significant impacts from hazardous materials and waste, but the degree of impact 

cannot be determined without a site-specific environmental assessment and investigation. These 

site-specific investigations to address LUSTs and small or unknown contaminated sites would be 

considered in the project-level EIR/EIS and predesign evaluations that would be tied to more detailed 

planning efforts for alignment plans and profiles. 

Potential impacts for HST Alignment Alternatives were compared to conditions under the No Project 

Alternative. This assessment assumes that impacts related to hazardous materials/hazardous waste 

exposure could occur both during project construction and during project operation. Impacts are 

evaluated based on the anticipated difference between the No Project conditions and conditions 

under the HST Alignment Alternatives. These different conditions, in terms of the estimated area of 

the proposed improvements, are discussed more fully in Chapter 2, “Alternatives,” which guided the 

identification of study area boundaries. Particular attention was paid to the extent of improvements 

that would occur outside existing rights-of-way. This analysis focused on the number of identified 

NPL, SPL, and SWLF sites in the study area. The program-level comparison of alternatives in this 

section assesses the relative degree to which known hazardous material and waste sites could 

constrain the alternatives by requiring costly disposal conditions and site cleanup and remediation. 

The number of sites gives some indication of an overall level of potential impact; more sites generally 

imply more potential impacts. In this comparative analysis, each type of listing (NPL, SPL, and 

SWLF) was given equal weight. 

This program-level analysis does not include a detailed assessment of the nature or extent of any 

hazardous materials or wastes that may be present at identified sites, or the degree or specific 

nature of potential impacts under the various alternatives. The analysis and identification of potential 

hazards in the study area is useful in comparing alternatives and in identifying areas where avoidance 

may be possible in subsequent project-level review. 

C. CEQA SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA 

The primary potential hazardous waste issues for HST Alignment Alternatives include short-term 

construction-related impacts on construction personnel or the public from contamination from known 

hazardous waste sites and storage and/or transportation of hazardous materials; long-term impacts 

on operation and maintenance personnel or the public from known hazardous waste sites and 

storage and/or transportation of hazardous materials; and impacts on construction or maintenance 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.11 Hazardous Materials and Wastes 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.11-6

personnel or the public from unknown but potentially existing contamination (e.g., ADL, LBP, 

petroleum hydrocarbon–affected soil and groundwater, and NOA). 

During the scoping process for this EIR/EIS, no comments were received suggesting that the EIR/EIS 

should use analysis methods and significance thresholds that were different from CEQA Appendix G 

thresholds of significance, or analysis methods different from those discussed in Section 3.11.1. 

Based on the potential impacts of the HST Alignment Alternatives analyzed in this EIR/EIS, the 

significance criteria described below were examined as to whether they would be appropriate 

thresholds for this analysis. 

Significance Thresholds

An alternative may result in a hazard to the public or the environment (significant impact) if there 

was an affirmative response to one of the questions below. With respect to this program evaluation, 

the thresholds of significance from Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines that can be evaluated at 

this time are: 

• Would the HST Alignment Alternative cause ground disturbance (including disturbance of 

groundwater or surface water) near a contaminated site during construction, operation, or 

maintenance activities and expose workers or the public to hazards from a known hazardous 

waste site? The point of significance would be such ground disturbance occurring within a 500-

ft-wide (152-m-wide) corridor (i.e., 250 ft [76 m] on either side of the centerline or the facility) 

along each alignment alternative and a 250-ft (76-m) radius around each station and 

maintenance facility. 

• Would the HST Alignment Alternative cause ground disturbance (including disturbance of 

groundwater or surface water) where contamination could exist (e.g., ADL, LBP, petroleum 

hydrocarbon–affected soil and groundwater, and NOA) during construction, operation, or 

maintenance activities? The point of significance would be such ground disturbance occurring in 

the 500-ft-wide (152-m-wide) corridor (i.e., 250 ft [76 m] on either side of the centerline or the 

facility) along each alignment alternative and in the 250-ft (76-m) radius around each station 

location or maintenance facility option. 

3.11.2 Affected Environment 

Detailed analysis and comparison of the number of hazardous materials/waste sites in the study area is 

presented in Table 3.11.1. Identification of hazardous materials/waste sites for each segment is 

presented in Appendix 3.11-A. Figure 3.11-1 shows the location of the identified hazardous 

materials/waste sites. 

A. STUDY AREA DEFINED 

The HST Alignment Alternatives would result in substantial improvements to existing infrastructure in 

or adjacent to existing rights-of-way, in addition to the No Project Alternative transportation 

improvements. Therefore, the study area for the presence of hazardous materials and wastes 

includes existing transportation corridors adjacent to HST alignments, the HST alignments, and areas 

where passenger stations and HST storage and maintenance facilities are being considered. The 

study area consisted of a 500-ft-wide (152-m-wide) corridor (i.e., 250 ft [76 m] on either side of the 

centerline or the facility) along each alignment alternative and a 250-ft (76-m) radius around each 

station and maintenance facility. The study area boundaries were based on the distance within 

which a hazardous material or waste site could impact the possible location of a transportation 

improvement under different HST alignment alternatives. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Potential Vibr

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.11 Hazardous Materials and Wastes 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.11-7

B. GENERAL DISCUSSION OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTE SITES 

Contaminated sites are more often found in commercial and industrial areas; however, NPL and 

SLWF sites are also known to occur in rural areas. Common impacts of dealing with contaminated 

sites during development of transportation projects include unanticipated costs associated with 

excavating (or pumping), transporting, disposing, or treating on site contaminated soil, groundwater, 

and hazardous materials; schedule delays associated with sampling, removing, treating, and/or 

disposing of contaminated media; and worker safety issues. 

If unanticipated contaminated soil is encountered during excavation in a project site, it not only poses 

a worker safety concern but also causes additional work associated with determining the type of 

chemical contamination and the limits of contamination in terms of its aerial and vertical extent. 

Unanticipated costs and construction delays frequently arise from mitigation measures, including the 

required regulatory agency coordination, soil sampling to characterize chemical concentrations, and 

onsite or offsite treatment and/or disposal costs. 

Adverse impacts could also result if contaminated groundwater from an unknown nearby 

contaminated site is caused to migrate farther in the groundwater or is actually pumped from an 

aquifer to the surface during construction-related dewatering activities. This scenario is possible if 

dewatering activities (e.g., for trenches and tunnels) intercepts the contaminated groundwater or 

causes a change in the local hydraulic gradient, thereby drawing contaminated groundwater from 

some offsite source. For contaminated groundwater, common problems would be the unanticipated 

costs and construction delays associated with regulatory coordination, groundwater sampling, 

possible onsite pretreatment of pumped groundwater, and/or offsite treatment and disposal of 

contaminated groundwater. 

Potential adverse impacts in the short-term (during construction) or long-term (during transit facility 

operation) would be the human health and the natural environment impacts if project activities cause 

existing fuel or chemical vapors to emanate from contaminated soil or groundwater or directly from 

leaks or spills of hazardous materials. These vapors could move through the vadose zone and 

potentially affect excavated areas or underground structures associated with the rail line (e.g., vaults 

and manholes). 

Materials and wastes that exhibit hazardous properties require special handling and management. 

Their treatment, storage, transport, and disposal are highly regulated by federal, state, and local 

governments, minimizing the risk to the public presented by these potential hazards. 

Asbestos, a known carcinogen, causes cancers of the lung and the lining of internal organs, as well 

as asbestosis and other diseases that inhibit lung function. Asbestos-Containing Materials (ACM) are 

commonly found in structures built prior to the 1980s. Typical ACM includes resilient floor covering, 

siding, asphalt roofing products, gaskets, and cement products (e.g., stucco). Current federal and 

state laws and regulations require that specific work practices be followed to abate the hazard 

associated with exposure to ACM during demolitions and renovations of all structures, installations, 

and buildings (excluding residential buildings that have four or fewer dwelling units). In addition, the 

regulations require that the owner of the building and/or the contractor notify applicable state and 

local agencies and/or EPA Regional Offices before all demolitions or before renovations of buildings 

that contain certain threshold amounts of asbestos. 

NOA found in serpentine rock is also a potential contamination issue. NOA is a fibrous mineral and is 

often in the form of long, thin fibers, but it can degrade from weathering or excavation activities into 

microscopic fibers and easily become airborne. There is no health threat if NOA does not become 

airborne, but, when suspended in the air and inhaled, these thin fibers irritate tissues and resist the 

body's natural defenses. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.11 Hazardous Materials and Wastes 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.11-8

C. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTE IN THE BAY AREA TO CENTRAL VALLEY REGION 

Figure 3.11-1 shows the general locations of the hazardous materials and hazardous waste sites 

identified in the Bay Area to Central Valley Region through the database searches. Additional 

information on the results of the database search is presented by segment in Appendix 3.11-A and in 

the hazardous materials and hazardous wastes technical evaluation documents prepared for each 

region (Environmental Data Resources 2003). More specific information regarding these sites is 

provided in Subsection 3.11.3B. 

Based on the results of the database searches, the hazardous materials and hazardous waste sites in 

the Bay Area to Central Valley Region are fairly limited in extent and could be effectively mitigated by 

incorporating avoidance features or engineering controls into the transportation design and/or 

implementing accepted hazardous-materials avoidance practices during construction activities. Such 

measures could substantially decrease costly remediation efforts and time associated with regulatory 

agency coordination. 

3.11.3 Environmental Consequences 

Most of the hazardous materials and hazardous waste sites in the study area are relatively minor in 

extent and could be effectively mitigated through typical design and construction practices. Figure 3.11-1 

shows the general locations of hazardous materials and hazardous waste sites identified through the 

database searches. 

The potential severity of impacts from hazardous material or waste releases on the construction, 

operations, and maintenance of the proposed HST Alignment Alternatives would depend on two factors: 

the nature and severity of contamination and the construction and operations/maintenance activities that 

would be likely to occur near the sites. The sites that pose the greatest concern are those with soil or 

groundwater contamination in or adjacent to the right-of-way, and those with groundwater contamination 

near areas where excavation down to groundwater would be necessary. For example, dewatering during 

excavation, trenching, or tunneling could alter local subsurface hydraulic gradients and draw groundwater 

contamination into excavated areas, trenches, or tunnels. In addition, fuel or chemical vapors could 

move through the vadose zone2

 to excavated areas (during construction) or to underground structures 

associated with the rail line, such as vaults and manholes (during project operation). These same 

impacts could occur near a NPL, SPL, SWLF, or LUFT site or near a small or unknown contaminated site, 

depending on the nature and extent of the contamination. 

A. NO-PROJECT ALTERNATIVE 

The No Project Alternative assumes that transportation needs are satisfied with the existing and 

future statewide intercity transportation system based on programmed and funded (already in funded 

programs/financially constrained plans) improvements to the intercity transportation system through 

2030, according to the following sources of information: 

• STIP. 

• RTPs for all modes of travel. 

• Airport plans. 

• Intercity passenger rail plans (California Rail Plan 2001–2010, Amtrak Five- and Twenty-Year 

Plans). 

 

2

 The vadose zone is the partially saturated soil between the ground surface and an underlying groundwater aquifer. Pollutants 

can travel downward from the ground surface through the vadose zone before entering groundwater or vise versa in some cases 

which could impact excavations at ground surface. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.11 Hazardous Materials and Wastes 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.11-9

The No Project Alternative also assumes that others would complete these projects, including the 

local, state, and interstate transportation system and airport improvements designated in existing 

plans and programs. It is assumed that no additional hazardous materials/waste impacts would 

occur beyond those addressed in the environmental documents for those projects and that any 

hazardous material/waste impacts would be mitigated as part of those projects. Therefore, the No 

Project Alternative is assumed to have no hazardous materials/waste impacts. 

For the purpose of this analysis, existing hazardous materials sites and hazardous waste sites 

identified in the available databases were treated as the baseline for comparison. Although the 

future conditions for the No Project Alternative may result in some additional hazardous 

materials/waste impacts, they cannot be predicted or estimated for purposes of this program-level 

analysis. Similarly, it can be presumed that during the next 24 years, some of the existing hazardous 

waste sites would be cleaned up or remediated as part of Cal-EPA and RWQCB efforts. 

B. HIGH-SPEED TRAIN ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES 

As described above, the No Project Alternative was used as a proxy for the baseline 2030 condition; 

the impact from any improvements associated with the HST Alignment Alternatives would be in 

addition to the impacts from the 2030 No Project Alternative. 

The extent of cleanup or remediation associated with having a hazardous materials/waste site in the 

study area could translate into additional costs for construction, which could make a major difference 

in practicality or feasibility of an alternative. As described above, this analysis was limited to 

searches of three databases listing known significant sites and did not incorporate information on 

other smaller or unknown sites that could contribute to risk on a local basis and would be studied at 

the project-specific level. In addition, because neither site-specific investigations nor onsite fieldwork 

was performed, little or no information is available about the nature or severity of contamination at 

the sites identified or the schedule or program for cleanup, if any. The comparison below, therefore, 

represents a site-count approximation and may not fully divulge potential risk levels. Finally, most of 

the HST Alignment Alternatives would be within existing rights-of-way, and these alignments have a 

land-use history under which additional unknown contamination (e.g., spills and accidental releases) 

would be a possibility. Consequently, some unavoidable hazardous materials and hazardous waste 

impacts are expected under the HST Alignment Alternatives. 

Summary of Hazardous Materials/Waste Sites 

Based on the database searches, five NPL sites, four SPL sites, and eight SWLF sites were identified 

in the study area. Table 3.11-1 lists the number of hazardous materials/waste sites in the study area 

for each alignment alternative. Following the table, a brief description and discussion of the potential 

impacts of these sites is provided for each alignment alternative within a corridor. More detailed data 

are provided in Table 3.11-A-1 in Appendix 3.11-A. Dashes on the table mean that the segment 

contained no listings on the database used. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.11 Hazardous Materials and Wastes 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.11-10

Table 3.11-1. Hazardous Materials Summary Data Table for 

Alignment Alternatives and Station Location Option Comparisons 

Corridor 

Possible 

Alignments 

Alignment Alternative 

Number of 

Hazardous 

Materials/Waste 

Sites 

San Francisco to San Jose: 

Caltrain 

1 of 1 San Francisco to Dumbarton 2 

1 of 1 Dumbarton to San Jose 3 

Station Location Options 

Transbay Transit Center -- 

4th and King (Caltrain) -- 

Millbrae/SFO -- 

Redwood City (Caltrain) -- 

Palo Alto (Caltrain) -- 

Oakland to San Jose: Niles/I880 1 of 2 West Oakland to Niles Junction 4 

12th Street/City Center to Niles 

Junction 

3 

1 of 2 Niles Junction to San Jose via Trimble -- 

Niles Junction to San Jose via I-880 -- 

Station Location Options 

West Oakland/7th Street -- 

12th Street/City Center -- 

Coliseum/Airport 2 

Union City (BART) -- 

Fremont (Warm Springs) 

San Jose to Central Valley: 

Pacheco Pass 

1 of 1 Pacheco -- 

1 of 3 Henry Miller (UPRR Connection) -- 

Henry Miller (BNSF Connection) -- 

GEA North 1 

Station Location Options 

San Jose (Diridon) -- 

Morgan Hill (Caltrain) -- 

Gilroy (Caltrain) -- 

East Bay to Central Valley: 

Altamont Pass

1 of 4 I-680/ 580/UPRR --

I-580/ UPRR --

Patterson Pass/UPRR --

UPRR --

1 of 4 Tracy Downtown (BNSF Connection) --
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.11 Hazardous Materials and Wastes 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.11-11

Corridor 

Possible 

Alignments 

Alignment Alternative 

Number of 

Hazardous 

Materials/Waste 

Sites 

Tracy ACE Station (BNSF Connection) --

Tracy ACE Station (UPRR Connection) --

Tracy Downtown (UPRR Connection) -- 

2 of 2 East Bay Connections 

Station Location Options 

Pleasanton (I-680/Bernal Rd) -- 

Pleasanton (BART) -- 

Livermore (Downtown) -- 

Livermore (I-580) -- 

Livermore (Greenville Road/UPRR) -- 

Livermore (Greenville Road/I-580) -- 

Tracy (Downtown) -- 

Tracy (ACE) -- 

San Francisco Bay Crossings 1 of 2 Trans Bay Crossing – Transbay Transit 

Center 

-- 

Trans Bay Crossing – 4th & King -- 

1 of 6 

Dumbarton (High Bridge) -- 

Dumbarton 

(Low Bridge) 

-- 

Dumbarton (Tube) -- 

Fremont Central Park 

(High Bridge) 

-- 

Fremont Central Park 

(Low Bridge) 

-- 

Fremont Central Park 

(Tube) 

-- 

Station Location Options 

Union City (Shinn Station) -- 

Central Valley 

1 of 6 

BNSF – UPRR -- 

BNSF 

UPRR N/S 

BNSF Castle 

UPRR – BNSF Castle 

UPRR – BNSF 

Station Location Options 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.11 Hazardous Materials and Wastes 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.11-12

Corridor 

Possible 

Alignments 

Alignment Alternative 

Number of 

Hazardous 

Materials/Waste 

Sites 

Modesto (Downtown) -- 

Briggsmore (Amtrak) -- 

Merced (Downtown) -- 

Castle AFB 1 

San Francisco to San Jose

In the San Francisco to San Jose corridor, three NPL sites, no SPL sites, and two SWLF sites were 

identified. The distribution of hazardous materials/waste sites among alternative alignments is 

presented in Table 3.11.1. 

Along the alignments, at least six tunnels are proposed (Caltrain station to downtown San Francisco, 

Paul Avenue to Tunnel Avenue in San Francisco, Oak Grove Avenue in Burlingame to 9th Avenue in 

San Mateo, Sunnyvale Avenue in Redwood City to Cambridge Avenue in Palo Alto, Pettis Avenue in 

Mountain View to Waverly Street in Sunnyvale, and Scott Boulevard to Lenzen Avenue in San Jose) 

as part of the design option for this corridor. The southern portal to the Paul Avenue/Tunnel Avenue 

tunnel would be constructed near the San Francisco Household Hazardous Waste Facility and 

San Bruno Transfer Station. There is some potential for hazardous materials/wastes to be 

present in these areas, and, if so, they could be encountered during construction. 

The alignment in this corridor is also adjacent to the Northrop Grumman Marine Systems NPL 

site. The site reported as Northrop Grumman Marine System appears to be the NPL site referred to 

as Westinghouse Electric Corporation (Sunnyvale Plant) on the EPA’s Superfund website, based on 

the EPA Identification Number provided in the database search (CAD001864081) (U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency 2003). The 75-acre Westinghouse Electric Corporation (Sunnyvale Plant) 

site was formerly used to manufacture electrical transformers. It is currently used to manufacture 

steam generators, marine propulsion systems, and missile launching systems for the U.S. Department 

of Defense. Groundwater contamination is believed to have resulted from a leaking polychlorinated 

biphenyls (PCBs) storage tank and from localized spills. Most of the contaminated areas on site have 

been removed or have been paved over. Access to the site is restricted (U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency 2003). 

The Jasco Chemical Company is also adjacent to the alignment in the corridor. According to the 

EPA (USEPA Region 9, site EPA ID# CAD009103318, 2006), bulk solvents used at the site were 

received by tankers and stored in eight underground storage tanks. Prior to 1985, pentachlorophenol 

(PCP) was stored at the site, which was an ingredient of a wood preservative formerly produced by 

Jasco. Elevated levels of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were detected in soils from a swale area 

located behind the building and in the shallow groundwater. Past waste disposal practices, and 

possibly leakage from an underground storage tank and surface water, may have contributed to soil 

and groundwater contamination near this site. According to the EPA, the removal of contaminated 

soil, the operation of the groundwater extraction system, and the use of the DVE/SVE system have 

reduced the potential of exposure at the Jasco Chemical Company site. Results from soil 

confirmation samples collected on February 26, 2002, showed that the site has reached cleanup 

goals. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.11 Hazardous Materials and Wastes 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.11-13

The alignment also passes through areas along part of its route that have been commercial/industrial 

use areas since the mid 1800s and earlier. Therefore, the route has some potential to encounter 

hazardous materials/wastes sites not included here. 

Oakland to San Jose

In the Oakland to San Jose corridor, no NPL sites, four SPL sites, and no SWLF sites were identified. 

The distribution of hazardous materials/waste sites among alternative alignments is presented in 

Table 3.11.1. 

The alternative alignments for the corridor include two locations for the Oakland station (West 

Oakland/7th Street and 12th Street/City Center) that would include subsurface tunneling by boring 

and cut-and-cover in the vicinity of downtown Oakland to construct the station. Although no NPL or 

SWLF sites were identified in this area, it is an older commercial/industrial area where historical 

releases of hazardous materials/wastes are likely and, thus, there is some potential that hazardous 

materials/wastes could be encountered during construction in this area. Only one SPL site was 

identified in the downtown Oakland area, Cole Auto Wreckers, along Niles/I-880 for the West 

Oakland alignment. Potential impacts to the proposed station location options from hazardous 

materials incidences would be further evaluated when the project-level environmental site 

assessments were prepared. 

The alternative alignments in this corridor would pass by the three SPL sites located near the 

proposed Oakland Coliseum Station. The two sites closest to the Oakland Coliseum Station are Aero 

Quality Plating and Union Pacific Oakland Coliseum. The third site, K & L Plating, is located 

south of the Oakland Coliseum. South of the Coliseum, the databases did not identify hazardous 

material/waste sites located along either the Trimble Road or I-880 alignment alternatives. 

The alignment alternatives in this corridor also pass through areas along part of their route that have 

been commercial/industrial use areas since the mid 1800s and earlier. Therefore, the route has some 

potential to encounter hazardous materials/wastes sites not included here. An environmental 

assessment would be performed as part of the design process to better identify impacts from 

contaminated sites. The assessment would also consider ADL and NOA. 

San Jose to Central Valley

In the San Jose to Central Valley corridor, no NPL sites, no SPL sites, and one SWLF site were 

identified. The distribution of hazardous materials/waste sites among alternative alignments is 

presented in Table 3.11.1. 

There are three alignment alternatives for the San Jose to Central Valley corridor. From the San Jose 

Diridon Station south to Morgan Hill and Gilroy stations and through Pacheco Pass, there is a single 

alignment. Although significant portions of this route are urban/commercial, the databases did not 

identify any hazardous materials/waste sites. East of Gilroy and through the Pacheco Pass area, 

most of the surrounding land use is open space or agricultural, and no hazardous sites were 

identified by the databases in this area either. 

East of Pacheco Pass, there are two different alignment alternatives: GEA North, which extends from 

Pacheco Pass to Merced and Atwater, and Henry Miller, which extends from Pacheco Pass to 

Chowchilla. Among these alignment alternatives, only one SWLF site, Winton Tire and 

Automotive Center in the town of Winton, was identified. 

Based on the occurrence of the SWLF site on the GEA North alignment, there is a slightly greater 

potential for hazardous materials/waste impacts along this alignment compared to the other 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.11 Hazardous Materials and Wastes 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.11-14

alignments in this corridor. The alignment alternatives in this corridor would pass through largely 

agricultural and open space and to a lesser extent commercial/industrial areas. Therefore, the rural 

route options have less potential to encounter hazardous materials/wastes as compared with the 

more urban route options. An environmental assessment would be performed during the design 

phase to better determine impacts from contamination. The assessment would consider ADL and 

NOA. 

East Bay to Central Valley

In the East Bay to Central Valley corridor, no NPL sites, no SPL sites, and no SWLF sites were 

identified. The alignment alternatives would pass through both urban/commercial/industrial and 

agricultural/rural areas—the former being among the cities and communities along the alignments 

(e.g., Niles, Pleasanton, Dublin, Livermore, Tracey, Manteca, and Stockton) and the later through the 

Altamont Pass area and portions of the Central Valley. 

Alignment alternatives through rural and agricultural areas have less potential to encounter 

hazardous materials/wastes as compared with the more urban areas. An environmental assessment 

would be performed during the design phase to better determine impacts from contamination. The 

assessment would consider ADL and NOA. 

San Francisco Bay Crossings

In the San Francisco Bay Crossings corridor, no NPL sites, no SPL sites, and no SWLF sites were 

identified. The alignment alternatives would connect west Oakland and San Francisco via a tube 

under the bay. Three options exist for the Dumbarton Rail crossing: an improved (low-level) 

Dumbarton rail bridge, a new high-level rail bridge, and a new transbay tube. 

Portions of the San Francisco Bay crossings pass through areas along part of its route that have been 

commercial/industrial use areas since the mid 1800s and earlier. Therefore, the route has some 

potential to encounter hazardous materials/wastes sites not included here. An environmental 

assessment would be performed during the design phase to better determine impacts from 

contamination. The assessment would consider ADL and NOA. The project-level environmental 

assessment work, which would include a review of Cortese-listed sites, would be important, given the 

potential for dewatering activities in the vicinity of the high groundwater areas near the Bay. 

Central Valley Alignment

In the Central Valley corridor, two NPL sites, no SPL sites, and six SWLF sites were identified. The 

distribution of hazardous materials/waste sites among alignments is presented in Table 3.11.1. This 

corridor includes alignment alternatives consisting of various combinations of the BNSF and UPRR rail 

lines. Alignment alternatives are discussed according to the number of hazardous materials/waste 

sites that occur in the alignment. 

The BNSF Castle alignment alternative has the least number of hazardous materials/waste sites, with 

one site along its segments at the former Castle Air Force Base (NPL site). According to the EPA, 

contamination at the 2,777-acre Castle Air Force Base occurred from the mid-1940s to the mid-1970s 

as a result of aircraft maintenance, fuel management, and fire training activities. Wastes primarily 

consist of waste fuels, oils, solvents, and cleaners and lesser amounts of paints and plating wastes. 

Investigations have been completed or are proceeding at multiple areas of contamination, including 

landfills, discharge areas, chemical disposal areas, fire training areas, fuel spill areas, and PCB spill 

areas (Environmental Protection Agency 2006). 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.11 Hazardous Materials and Wastes 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.11-15

The BNSF alignment has two hazardous materials/waste sites along its segments: the former Castle 

Air Force Base and Winton Tire and Automotive Center (SWLF site) along the UPRR/BNSF 

connector to Atwater. 

The UPRR N/S alignment alternative has eight hazardous materials/waste sites. Valley Wood 

Preserving (NPL site) is along one segment, Larry’s Tire Mart (SWLF site) is along two segments, 

Mercer Property (CHP Site) (SWLF site) is along two segments, Golden State Auto Wrecking 

(SWLF site) is along one segment, Southwest Tire Shop (SWLF site) is along one segment, and G 

& S Tires (SWLF site) is on one segment. According to the EPA, Valley Wood Preserving, which 

operated a 14-acre site near Turlock from 1973 to 1979, pressure treated lumber with an aqueous 

chromated copper arsenate (CCA) solution. This solution was mixed in an aboveground tank near 

the site boundary and was stored in three adjacent aboveground tanks. Water was piped to the 

mixing tanks from a well. After the treatment cycle, the wood-treatment solution was drained into 

sumps and pumped back to the mixing tank for reuse. In 1979, the RWQCB identified toxic woodtreating chemicals in an onsite storage pond, monitoring wells, and on- and offsite soils. 

The UPRR—BNSF Castle alignment has 10 hazardous materials/waste sites along its segments: 

Valley Wood Preserving (NPL site) is along one segment, Larry’s Tire Mart (SWLF site) is along 

two segments, Mercer Property (CHP Site) (SWLF site) is along two segments, Golden State 

Auto Wrecking (SWLF site) is along one segment, Southwest Tire Shop (SWLF site) is along one 

segment, G & S Tires (SWLF site) is on one segment, and Castle Air Force Base is along two 

segments. 

The 6 alignment has 11 sites along its segments: Valley Wood Preserving (NPL site) is along one 

segment, Larry’s Tire Mart (SWLF site) is along two segments, Mercer Property (CHP Site) 

(SWLF site) is along two segments, Golden State Auto Wrecking (SWLF site) is along one 

segment, Southwest Tire Shop (SWLF site) is along one segment, G & S Tires (SWLF site) is on 

one segment, the former Castle Air Force Base is along two segments, and Winton Tire and 

Automotive Center (SWLF site) along one segment. 

An environmental assessment would be performed during the design phase to better determine 

impacts from contamination, as well as examine the Cortese-listed sites. The assessment would also 

consider ADL and NOA. 

3.11.4 Role of Design Practices in Avoiding and Minimizing Effects 

At this programmatic level of study, it is not possible to identify specific hazardous material impacts, the 

nature and severity of contamination, or the construction and operations/maintenance activities that are 

likely to occur near specific sites. However, the Authority is committed to avoiding and minimizing 

potential impacts through design refinement at the project level as well as the use of best management 

practices (BMP) to avoid potential impacts during construction. 

3.11.5 Mitigation Strategies and CEQA Significance Conclusions 

Based on the analysis above, each of the HST Alignment Alternatives except for the Altamont Pass and 

the San Francisco Bay Crossings could result in ground disturbance at or near a contaminated site that 

could potentially expose workers or the public to hazardous wastes. No hazardous material sites were 

identified in the vicinity of the Altamont Pass and San Francisco Bay Crossings, and for this reason, these 

two alignments are considered less than significant at the programmatic level. However, because the 

Altamont Pass and San Francisco Bay Crossings pass though urban areas, it is anticipated that they may 

be in proximity to hazardous materials sites that could be revealed during future more comprehensive 

environmental database searches performed during the project pre-design phase. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.11 Hazardous Materials and Wastes 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.11-16

Based on results of the hazardous material site database search, station location options at the Oakland 

Coliseum/Airport and Castle Air Force Base could also potentially result in ground disturbance at or near a 

contaminated site that could potentially expose workers or the public to hazardous wastes. The impact 

at these station location options is considered significant at the programmatic level. Other station 

location option impacts are considered less than significant at the programmatic level because no 

hazardous material sites were identified during the database search. However, many of the other station 

options are located in urban areas (e.g. Oakland/7th Street and 12th Street/City Center), and a more 

comprehensive environmental database search of the vicinity of these stations (performed during the 

project predesign phase) could reveal additional hazardous materials sites. 

Mitigation for impacts related to hazardous materials or hazardous wastes depends on detailed sitespecific investigations (environmental site assessments) that have not been performed at this 

programmatic level of analysis. More-detailed analysis and specific mitigation measures would be 

included in subsequent project-level analysis. Mitigation strategies could include realignment of the HST 

corridor or relocation of associated features, such as stations, to avoid an identified site, and remediation 

of identified hazardous material/waste contamination. 

In addition, potential mitigation strategies would include, but are not limited to, the following strategies: 

• Investigate soils and groundwater for contamination and prepare environmental site assessments 

when necessary. 

• Design realignment of the HST corridors to avoid identified sites. 

• Relocate HST-associated facilities, such as stations, to avoid identified sites. 

• Remediate identified hazardous materials and hazardous waste contamination. 

• Prior to demolition of buildings for project construction, survey for LBP and ACM. 

• Follow BMPs for testing, treating, and disposing of water and acquire necessary permits from the 

RWQCB if ground dewatering is required. 

• When indicated by project-level environmental site assessments, perform Phase II environmental site 

assessments in conformance with the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standards 

related to the Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Process to identify specific mitigation 

measures. 

• Prepare a Site Management Program/Contingency Plan prior to construction to address known and 

potential hazardous material issues, including: 

− Measures to address management of contaminated soil and groundwater; 

− A site-specific Health and Safety Plan (HASP), including measures to protect construction workers 

and general public; and 

− Procedures to protect workers and the general public in the event that unknown contamination or 

buried hazards are encountered. 

• As part of the second-tier environmental review, consider impacts to the environment on sites 

identified on the Cortese List (Government Code section 65962.4) at that time. 

The above mitigation strategies are expected to reduce impacts related to hazardous materials and 

wastes to a less-than-significant level. 

At this programmatic level of review, it is not possible to identify the nature and severity of contamination 

at specific sites on the different alignment alternatives. However, the co-lead agencies’ commitment of 

using design practices to minimize impacts and the use of BMPs and mitigation strategies for remediation 

of hazardous sites are expected to substantially lessen or avoid impacts to hazardous materials and 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.11 Hazardous Materials and Wastes 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.11-17

wastes. With the project-level review, including review of the Cortese-listed sites, specific impacts to 

sites with hazardous materials would be identified, and mitigation measures based on these mitigation 

strategies would be applied on a site-specific basis. Additional environmental assessments would allow 

evaluation that is more precise in the project-level environmental analyses. 

3.11.6 Subsequent Analysis 

For each project-specific environmental document that tiers off the Program EIR/EIS, a subsequent 

analysis consisting of an environmental site assessment would need to be conducted to further analyze 

the identified potential hazardous materials/waste sites and to further analyze and document the 

potential impacts related to the proposed project. This analysis will be prepared in conformance with the 

ASTM guidelines for preparing an environmental site assessment (E1527-05). 

An environmental site assessment template would be provided to the Regional Analysis Teams when the 

project-specific environmental document stage of the project commences. Tasks to be performed for 

inclusion in the environmental site assessment are outlined in ASTM E 1527-05 and include: 

• Task 1—Environmental Database Search. 

• Task 2—Review of Historical Land Use. 

• Task 3—Site Reconnaissance. 

• Task 4—Agency Records Review/Interviews. 

• Task 5—Data Analysis and Report Preparation. 

Task 1 would involve performing a database search update, using the most recent NPL, SPL, and SWLF 

databases and the Cortese Database in Gov. Code 65962.5. The database search would also identify 

sites in other federal, state, and local hazardous materials/waste databases in accordance with the ASTM 

guidelines for preparing an environmental site assessment (E1527-00) and would also include a review of 

the United States Geological Survey Mineral Resource Data System for the presence of mining facilities 

that may have hazardous materials/wastes issues. 

Task 2 involves an analysis within the project area of historical land uses in order to identify potential 

historical contaminant sources that may adversely affect the project area. Information sources that 

would be consulted include: 

• Sanborn-Perris Maps, which were created for fire insurance purposes, and consist of detailed 

drawings of cities, including residential and business areas. 

• Historical aerial photographs (such as those that can be accessed from the Fairchild Aerial 

Photograph Collection at Whittier College). 

Task 3 involves performing a site reconnaissance for each identified site in the project area and 

surrounding vicinity. The site reconnaissance would be conducted to identify and confirm potential 

contaminant sources identified during Tasks 1 and 2, and to identify potential unreported contaminant 

sources that may adversely impact the area. The site reconnaissance would be conducted from public 

access areas and from within the project area, as feasible. Information would be recorded regarding the 

site location, the general upkeep of the site, and other observed conditions that might indicate a potential 

environmental concern. 

Task 4 involves the gathering of information from the database search, the historic land use review, and 

the site reconnaissance. The list of potential contaminant sources would be assembled based on the type 

of site (e.g., database listing type), the distance from proposed project activities (see Task 1), and the 

information gathered during the site reconnaissance. A regulatory agency file review would then be 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.11 Hazardous Materials and Wastes 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.11-18

conducted for the identified potential contaminant sources to develop additional site-specific information 

for the selected properties. The agency files would be reviewed for the most recent site status 

information, the nature and extent of contamination, pertinent land uses, and geologic, hydrogeologic, 

and other information that may be used to assess potential impacts to the project. 

Task 5 involves screening the potential contaminant sources identified during Tasks 1 through 4. These 

potential sources would then be screened to determine their potential impact to the project based on the 

following criteria: 

• The occurrence of a documented release, based on either public records or physical observation. 

• The physical, chemical, and toxicological characteristics of suspected contaminants released from 

potential sources, and the media potentially affected (soil, water, and air). 

• Distance from the project area/facility site. 

• Nature of proposed design and construction activities in relation to the location and possible impact 

from a potential contaminant source. 

• Estimated groundwater flow, direction, and depth. 

These criteria would be used to eliminate potential sources that are unlikely to present an impact to the 

proposed project. The environmental site assessment does not constitute a definitive assessment 

regarding the actual presence or absence of contamination. The intent of the assessment is to identify 

reported and obvious potential hazardous conditions that would need to be addressed or considered 

before proceeding with project construction. The assessment is not performed to meet innocent 

landowner provisions provided under CERCLA, which establishes a defense for the purchase of real 

property. In addition, the assessment does not guarantee, imply, or assert that all potential contaminant 

sources have been located due to the possible presence of an unlisted or unidentified contaminant 

occurrence. Additional subjects that will need to be addressed in the assessment include ACM, ADL, LBP, 

yellow traffic stripe, pavement marking materials, yellow paint, radon, and NOA. 

Based on the information presented in the project-level environmental site assessment, a determination 

will be made regarding any sites that will need to have a Phase II environmental site assessment 

performed (e.g., hydrogeologic investigation). This recommendation for a Phase II assessment, along 

with the implementation of any recommendations made in the document prepared in conjunction with 

the Phase II assessment, would be identified as a mitigation measure for addressing the potential 

contamination sites along the identified alignment that require further investigation regarding hazardous 

materials/waste. The assessment document would specify that the Phase II environmental assessment 

must be prepared in conformance with the ASTM Standards Related to the Phase II Environmental Site 

Assessment Process (E1903-01). 

The need for testing for ACM, ADL, LBP, yellow traffic stripe, pavement marking materials, yellow paint, 

radon, and NOA, as appropriate, would be addressed in the mitigation section of the environmental site 

assessment. 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.12-1

3.12 Cultural Resources and Paleontological Resources 

Cultural resources include prehistoric archaeological sites, historic archaeological sites, traditional cultural 

properties, and historic structures. Paleontological resources are resources in the fossil record, such as 

prehistoric remains and other evidence of past life. This section discusses the applicable federal and 

state laws and regulations that protect cultural and paleontological resources, including Section 106 of 

the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and California Public Resources Code Sections 5024.1 and 

21084.1, and assesses the potential for the proposed HST system to have impacts on these resources1

. 

3.12.1 Regulatory Requirements and Methods of Evaluation 

A. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 

Cultural Resources

The NHPA (16 USC § 470 et seq.) established a national program to preserve the country’s historical 

and cultural resources. Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to consider the effects of 

their actions on historic properties and provide the President’s Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation an opportunity to comment on a proposed action before it is implemented. Regulations 

for implementing the Section 106 process are provided in 36 CFR § 800. Both state and federal 

guidelines for cultural resources recognize that buildings, structures, objects, districts, and cultural 

landscapes can be historically significant. The NHPA refers to these significant resources as historic 

properties, while under CEQA, such highly sensitive resources are referred to as historical resources. 

Under NHPA Section 106 (36 CFR § 800.16), a historic property is “any prehistoric or historic district, 

site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of 

Historic Places [NRHP].” Districts include the property types known as cultural landscapes (historic, 

rural, designed, etc.). To be eligible for the NRHP, these property types must meet at least one of 

the NRHP significance evaluation criteria (36 CFR § 60.4) to be considered a historic property, and 

the property must also possess integrity. NRHP historic properties meet one or more of the following 

evaluation criteria: 

• The property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad 

patterns of our history (Criterion A). 

• The property is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past (Criterion B). 

• The property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of 

construction; represents the work of a master; possesses high artistic values; or represents a 

significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction (Criterion 

C). 

• The property has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history 

(Criterion D). 

Under CEQA, significant cultural resources are called historical resources whether they are of historic 

or prehistoric age. Historical resources are resources that are listed, or eligible for listing, in the 

California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), or which are listed in the historical register of a 

local jurisdiction (county or city). NRHP historic properties located in California are considered 

historical resources for the purposes of CEQA and are also listed in the CRHR (PRC § 5024.1). 

Generally, a resource should be considered a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA if it has 

integrity and meets one or more of the criteria for listing in the CRHR (CEQA Guidelines § 

 

1

 See Section 3.0, Introduction, for an explanation of how this section fits together with the HST Network Alternatives presented in 

Chapter 7, as well as for an overview of the information presented in the other chapters. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.12 Cultural Resources and Paleontological Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.12-2

15064.5[a][3]). These state criteria are based on, and are very similar to, federal significance 

criteria: 

• The resource is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad 

patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage (Criterion 1). 

• The resource is associated with the lives of persons important in California’s past (Criterion 2). 

• The resource embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of 

construction; represents the work of an important creative individual; or possesses high artistic 

values (Criterion 3). 

• The resource has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history 

(Criterion 4). 

The NRHP and CRHR criteria are almost identical. Any resource determined eligible for NRHP is also 

automatically eligible for CRHR. However, the term historical resources under CEQA and CRHR is 

more inclusive because resources listed in local historical surveys that meet Office of Historic 

Preservation standards are encompassed. 

Adverse changes to historic properties and historical resources caused by an undertaking are 

described as adverse effects under Section 106, and as adverse changes or adverse impacts under 

CEQA. The definition of effect for the purposes of Section 106 of NHPA is contained within 36 CFR § 

800.16 (i): “Effect means alteration to the characteristics of a historic property qualifying it for 

inclusion in or eligibility for the National Register.” An adverse effect occurs “when an undertaking 

may alter, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of a historic property that qualify the 

property for inclusion in the National Register in a manner that would diminish the integrity of the 

property’s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association.... Adverse 

effects may include reasonably foreseeable effects caused by the undertaking that may occur later in 

time, be farther removed in distance or be cumulative.”2

 Examples of adverse effects may include, 

but are not limited to, destruction, damage, alteration, or relocation of a historic property, as well as 

the introduction of elements that diminish the property’s integrity, cause neglect of a property, or its 

transfer out of federal ownership.3

 

Impacts on historical resources listed in or eligible for the CRHR constitute a significant effect on the 

environment (significant impacts that must be disclosed in a CEQA environmental document) if the 

impact constitutes a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource (PRC § 

21084.1). Similar to the federal definition of adverse effect, a substantial adverse change to a 

historical resource under CEQA includes “physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of 

the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would 

be materially impaired” (CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5[b][1]). Material impairment includes changes to 

the physical characteristics that make a historical resource eligible for listing in the CRHR such that 

the resource would no longer be eligible for the CRHR or a local historical register (CEQA Guidelines § 

15064.5[b][2]). 

Paleontological Resources

The following United States statutes incorporate provisions for the protection of paleontological 

resources. 

 

2

 36 CFR 800.5(a)(1). 

3

 36 CFR 800.5(a)(2)(i through vii). 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.12 Cultural Resources and Paleontological Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.12-3

• Federal Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 USC § 431 et seq.): Establishes national monuments and 

preservation of lands that have historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other 

objects of historic or scientific interest on federal lands. Section 433 prohibits appropriation, 

excavation, injury, or destruction of any historic or prehistoric ruin or monument, or any object of 

antiquity on federal lands only. 

• National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (P.L. 91–190, 83 Stat. 852, 42 USC §§ 4321–4327): 

Mandates policies to “preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national 

heritage” (§ 101.b4). 

In California, fossil resources are considered a limited, nonrenewable, highly sensitive scientific 

resource. The following state statutes incorporate provisions for the protection of paleontological 

resources. 

• CEQA (PRC § 21000 et seq.): Requires public agencies and private interests to identify the 

potential adverse impacts and/or environmental consequences of their proposed project(s) to any 

object or site that is historically or archaeologically significant or significant in the cultural or 

scientific annals of California (PRC § 5020.1). Under CEQA, archaeological resources are 

presumed nonunique unless they meet the definition of unique archaeological resources (PRC § 

21083.2[g]). Under CEQA, an impact on a nonunique archaeological resource is not considered a 

significant environmental impact. An EIR need not discuss nonunique archaeological resources. 

• CEQA Guidelines (14 C.C.R. § 15064.5 [a][3]): Provides that a lead agency may find that “any 

object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript” is historically significant or 

significant in the “cultural annals of California.” The section also provides that, generally, a 

resource may be considered historically significant if it has yielded or may be likely to yield 

information important in prehistory. Paleontological resources fall within this broad category and 

are included in the CEQA checklist under cultural resources. 

• Public Resources Code Section 5097.5: Prohibits excavation or removal of any “vertebrate 

paleontological site...or any other archaeological, paleontological or historical feature, situated on 

public lands, except with the express permission of the public agency having jurisdiction over 

such lands.” Public lands include lands owned by or under the jurisdiction of the state of 

California or any city, county, district, authority, or public corporation, or any agency thereof. 

This section provides that any unauthorized disturbance or removal of paleontologic, 

archaeological, and/or historic materials or sites located on public lands is a misdemeanor. 

• Public Resources Code Section 30244: Requires reasonable mitigation of adverse impacts on 

paleontological resources resulting from development on public land in the coastal zone, as 

defined in Public Resources Code Section 30103. 

B. METHOD OF EVALUATION OF IMPACTS TO CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Archaeological Sites and Traditional Cultural Properties

As part of the Authority’s and FRA’s statewide HST Program EIR/EIS document (November 2005), the 

FRA initiated consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) under Section 106 of the 

NHPA in November 2002. SHPO concurred with a phased identification effort for historic properties 

as provided for in 36 CFR § 800.4 (b)(2). The phased identification effort would continue for this 

Program EIR/EIS. As with the statewide HST Program EIR/EIS, the area of potential effects (APE) for 

this undertaking was defined as 500 ft on either side of the HST Alignment Alternatives centerline in 

non-urban areas and 100 ft from the centerline in urban areas. Where stations or other HST facilities 

are proposed, the APE was 500 ft around the facility. 

Cultural resources studies began with records searches obtained from the appropriate California 

Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) Information Centers. The records searches 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.12 Cultural Resources and Paleontological Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.12-4

identified the general locations of previously recorded archaeological sites in the APE. The number of 

known archaeological sites within the APE for each alternative was tabulated and used as an indicator 

of potential sensitivity for the comparison of the relative degree of potential impacts or effects for 

each alternative. For this program-level analysis, individual archaeological sites were not evaluated 

for eligibility. Instead, the archaeological sites identified as a result of the records searches were 

considered potentially eligible for listing in the CRHR or the NRHP, and the number of archaeological 

sites per linear mile identified in the APE for each alternative was used as an indicator of the relative 

degree of potential impacts on cultural resources from construction or operation of that alternative. 

Impacts on NRHP-eligible archaeological resources include physical destruction or damage. The total 

number of archaeological sites in the APE for the corridor was divided by the total length of the 

alignment alternative being evaluated to arrive at an average number of sites (or proportion of sites) 

per mile. That average was then translated to a qualitative rating of low, medium, and high impacts 

as follows. 

• Low: 0.00–0.25 site per mile for the corridor. 

• Medium: 0.26–0.75 site per mile. 

• High: 0.76 or more sites per mile. 

The cultural resource specialist’s knowledge and background of regional prehistory supplemented the 

records search results. For example, if the cultural resource specialist had previous knowledge that 

several sites have been identified along a particular river drainage in the region, but the records 

search did not yield formally recorded sites in CHRIS within the APE for a particular alignment 

alternative, the cultural resource specialist documented the additional information and, based on it, 

increased the rating for that corridor. In addition to the records search, previous studies prepared 

for the statewide Program EIR/EIS were utilized and included the Sacramento to Bakersfield, Cultural 

Resources Technical Evaluation (Applied Earthworks 2004) and the Bay Area to Merced, Cultural 

Resources, Archeology, Technical Evaluation (Far Western Anthropological Research Group 2004). 

Contemporary Native Americans often regard certain types of prehistoric sites and certain types of 

material sites as especially sensitive. These include habitation sites, shell mounds, and burials. If 

sites with these characteristics are present along an alignment alternative, that alignment alternative 

was automatically ranked high for archaeological resources, indicating that the potential sensitivity to 

impacts from construction disturbance would be greater in that corridor than in a corridor ranked as 

low or medium. 

If the potential project impacts for each alignment alternative could not be differentiated after 

examining the average number of sites per linear mile (e.g. all corridors have the same rating), each 

alignment alternative was ranked qualitatively from highest to lowest impact, based on the total 

number of sites, number of human burial sites, number of habitation sites, and/or any additional 

documented findings from the cultural resource specialist. 

The FRA and the Authority initiated consultation with the California Native American Heritage 

Commission (NAHC) and requested a search of their Sacred Lands file as part of the Statewide 

Program EIR/EIS to identify any traditional cultural properties that could be potentially impacted or 

affected by the project, and requested lists of Native Americans to contact for the areas that could be 

affected by the project, as required by 36 CFR § 800.4(1)(4). Information on traditional cultural 

properties would be more readily available during the project-level stage of environmental review 

during formal consultation when specific project locations and impact information can be shared. 

As part of the statewide Program EIR/EIS, letters were sent to Native Americans on the contact lists 

provided by the NAHC. The letters provided information about the proposed project alternatives and 

requested information about any archaeological sites, traditional cultural properties, or sacred sites 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.12 Cultural Resources and Paleontological Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.12-5

that could be affected by the project. Subsequently, as part of this Program EIR/EIS, Authority staff 

contacted tribal representatives to discuss the HST Alignment Alternatives under consideration for the 

Bay Area to Central Valley. 

Historic-era Properties and Historical Resources 

The SHPO was also consulted regarding the phased identification effort used in the statewide 

Program EIR/EIS for evaluating potential effects and impacts to historic-era properties and historical 

resources. 

The method used to predict potential effects and impacts of the HST program on historic properties 

and historical resources is based upon estimating the amount of historic development that occurred 

along each proposed alignment alternative and the records search discussed above. These estimates 

were based upon review of existing documentation, including historical maps, aerial photographs, 

and local inventories, and the preparers’ knowledge of the history of the region. New surveys of 

historic-period properties/resources were not conducted for this program-level analysis. Instead, the 

likelihood that a proposed HST route would affect or impact historic properties or historical resources 

was determined by estimating the linear miles of each alignment alternative that pass through 

historic development, i.e., buildings, structures, objects, sites, district, and/or landscapes that 

developed during specific historical time periods (before 1900, 1900 to 1929, and 1930 to 1958). 

The more area along each HST Alignment Alternative that developed historically, the more likely it is 

that there would be historic-era properties/historical resources along the route that could be affected 

or impacted by the HST program. If an alignment alternative traversed an area that was developed 

fifty or more years ago, there is a high possibility for numerous unrecorded architectural resources to 

be present within and/or immediately adjacent to the APE. This would result in a higher sensitivity 

rating as well. In addition to the records search, previous studies prepared for the statewide 

Program EIR/EIS were utilized and included the Sacramento to Bakersfield, Cultural Resources 

Technical Evaluation (Applied Earthworks 2004) and the Bay Area to Merced, Cultural Resources: 

Historic Architecture Technical Evaluation (JRP Historical Consulting Services 2004). 

Paleontological Resources

Paleontological resources determined to be significant are fossils or assemblages of fossils that are 

unique, unusual, rare, uncommon, and diagnostically or stratigraphically (layers of the earth’s 

surface) important, as well as those that add to an existing body of knowledge in specific areas—

stratigraphically, taxonomically, and/or regionally. 

The paleontological resources analysis is based on review of USGS (2006a) geologic maps and the 

Bay Area to Merced Segment Paleontologic Resources Technical Evaluation (Parsons 2004) and 

Sacramento to Bakersfield Paleontologic Resources Technical Evaluation (EIP Associates 2004). 

Literature research and institutional records searches or geologic maps and geographic data from the 

University of California Museum of Paleontology in Berkeley have resulted in the designation of areas 

along the HST Alignment Alternatives as having high or low paleontologic sensitivity, as follows. 

• High: Sedimentary units with a high potential for containing significant nonrenewable 

paleontological resources. In these cases, the sedimentary rock unit contains a high density of 

recorded vertebrate fossil sites, has produced vertebrate fossil remains within the study area 

and/or vicinity, and is likely to yield additional remains within the study area. 

• Low: The rock unit contains no or very low density of recorded resource localities, has produced 

little or no fossil remains within the study area and/or vicinity, and is not likely to yield any 

remains within the study area. 

The number of rock units (formations) having high paleontologic sensitivity and the number of 

paleontological resource localities recorded within each study area were assessed to provide an 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.12 Cultural Resources and Paleontological Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.12-6

interpretation of the overall ranking of high, medium, or low potential to impact paleontological 

resources. This evaluation was reached based on the likelihood of these rock units to contain 

paleontological resources. Taking the length of alignment segments into consideration and the 

paleontological sensitivity of those segments, a low overall ranking was determined for the alignment 

alternative if a majority has a low sensitivity. A medium overall ranking was determined if an 

alignment alternative has both low and high sensitivity equally. A high overall ranking was 

determined if a majority of the alignment alternative has a high sensitivity. 

C. CEQA SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA 

Under CEQA, a project may have a significant impact on cultural resources if it would: 

• Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical or archaeological resource. 

• Directly or indirectly destroy a unique geologic feature or unique paleontological resource or site. 

• Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. 

CEQA guidelines use the following definitions to analyze impacts on historical or archaeological 

resources: 

• Substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource means physical demolition, 

destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the 

significance of a historical resource would be materially impaired (CEQA Guidelines 

Section 15064.5[b][1]). 

• The significance of a historical resource would be materially impaired when a project demolishes 

or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that convey its historic 

significance or justify its eligibility for inclusion in or eligibility for the NRHP, CRHR, or local 

registers. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[b][2][A–C]).

3.12.2 Affected Environment 

A. STUDY AREA DEFINED 

The study area for cultural resources is the APE as noted above. The APE for cultural resources at 

this program level of analysis was developed based on review of the records searches from the 

CHRIS Information Centers, as well as the cultural resource specialists’ knowledge and experience in 

regional history and prehistory. It is important to note that the APE was specifically designed to aid 

in the program-level analysis, which provides a general comparison of the alternatives without new 

identification surveys. The size and width of the APE was selected to predict the existence and 

relative sensitivity of cultural resources in and near the proposed program alignment alternatives, 

including prehistoric archaeological sites; historic archaeological sites; traditional cultural properties; 

and historic buildings, structures, objects, districts, and cultural landscapes. The APE for cultural 

resources for the proposed HST alignment alternatives is as follows: 

• 500 ft (152 m) on each side of the centerline of proposed new rail routes where additional rightof-way could be needed. 

• 100 ft (30 m) on each side of the centerline for routes along existing highways and railroads 

where very little additional right-of-way would be needed. 

• 500 ft (152 m) around station locations. 

Locations of easements and construction-related facilities, such as equipment staging areas, borrow 

and disposal areas, access roads, and utilities, have not yet been identified. Locations for these 

would be identified as part of the construction design program for the alignment alternatives selected 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.12 Cultural Resources and Paleontological Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.12-7

for more detailed analysis in the next phase of the project. Therefore, these items are not 

considered in the program-level (also known as Tier-1) analysis, but this information would be 

available for project-level (also known as Tier-2) site-specific EIR/EISs. The APE would be modified 

to include these items as part of the project-level analysis. 

The study area for paleontological resources under the HSR alignment alternatives is 100 ft (30 m) 

on each side of the centerline of proposed rail routes (including station locations), in both nonurban 

and urban areas. The study area for paleontological resources is limited to the area that would 

potentially be disturbed by earthwork construction activities. 

B. CULTURAL RESOURCE CATEGORIES 

The following topics are covered in this section. 

• Prehistoric archaeological sites. 

• Historic archaeological sites. 

• Historic-era properties and historical resources. 

• Traditional cultural properties. 

• Paleontological resources. 

Following are brief descriptions of each cultural resource category. 

Prehistoric Archaeological Sites

Prehistoric archaeological sites in California are places where Native Americans lived or carried out 

activities during the prehistoric period before 1769 AD. Prehistoric sites contain artifacts and 

subsistence remains, and they may contain human burials. Artifacts are objects made by people and 

include tools (such as projectile points, scrapers, and grinding implements), waste products from 

making flaked stone tools (debitage), and nonutilitarian artifacts (beads, ornaments, ceremonial 

items, and rock art). Subsistence remains include the inedible portions of foods, such as animal bone 

and shell, and edible parts that were lost and not consumed, such as charred seeds. 

Historic Archaeological Sites

Historic archaeological sites in California are places where human activities were carried out during 

the historic period between 1769 AD and 50 years ago. Some of these sites may be the result of 

Native American activities during the historic period, but most are the result of Spanish, Mexican, 

Asian, African-American, or Anglo-American activities. Most historic archaeological sites are places 

where houses formerly existed and contain ceramic, metal, and glass refuse resulting from the 

transport, preparation, and consumption of food. Such sites can also contain house foundations and 

structural remnants, such as windowpane glass, lumber, and nails. Historical archaeological sites can 

also be nonresidential, resulting from ranching, farming, industrial, and other activities. 

Historic-era Properties / Historical Resources

Historic-era properties (NRHP) and historical resources (CRHR) are historically significant elements of 

the built environment that are listed in or eligible for the NRHP and/or the CRHR. These elements 

reflect important aspects of local, state, and/or national history and can be buildings, structures, 

objects, sites, districts, and/or historic cultural landscapes. Examples of the types of historic-era 

properties or historical resources that are located in and near the APE for the HST program include 

dwellings, industrial buildings, commercial buildings, downtown districts, farms, canals, rural 

landscapes, dams, bridges, roads, and other facilities that were built, operated, and previously gained 

historical significance. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.12 Cultural Resources and Paleontological Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.12-8

Traditional Cultural Properties

Traditional cultural properties are places associated with the cultural practices or beliefs of a living 

community that are rooted in that community’s history and are important in maintaining the 

continuing cultural identity of the community. Examples include locations “associated with the 

traditional beliefs of a Native American group about its origins, its cultural history, or the nature of 

the world” and locations “where Native American religious practitioners have historically gone, and 

are known or thought to go today, to perform ceremonial activities in accordance with traditional 

cultural rules of practice” (Parker and King 1990). 

Paleontological Resources

Paleontological resources are the fossilized remains of animals and plants. They are typically found 

in sedimentary rock units, and they provide information about the evolution of life on earth over the 

past 500 million years or more. 

Cultural resources within the Bay Area to Central Valley region are discussed below. 

Archaeological Resources 

As described above, information on the numbers, kinds, and locations of archaeological sites for this 

Program EIR/EIS was obtained from CHRIS Information Centers. For the most part, the data from 

CHRIS Information Centers provide cultural resources information only for areas that have been 

previously surveyed by archaeologists. No archaeological field surveys were conducted for this 

Program EIR/EIS. However, surveys would be a part of the next stage of environmental review in 

the project-level EIR/EIS (see Section 3.12-6, Mitigation Strategies and CEQA Significance 

Conclusions). 

The study area includes central California from the San Francisco Bay Area (San Francisco and 

Oakland) south to the Santa Clara Valley and east across the Diablo Range to the Central Valley. The 

Central Valley portion of the APE spans from Stockton in the north to Madera County in the south. 

Archaeological evidence places prehistoric people in California as early as 8,000 to 12,000 years ago; 

however, the last 2,000 to 4,000 years are best documented. The regional chronological sequence of 

time periods (PaleoIndian; Early, Middle, and Late Archaic; and Protohistoric) reflects changes in land 

use that were influenced by population growth (e.g., shift from small camps to village sites), 

technological innovation (e.g., shift from use of the spear to bow and arrow), and resource 

intensification (e.g., the intensive use of mortars and pestles and bedrock milling features for acorn 

processing). Change also resulted from population movements and displacements and from outside 

influences such as climatic changes. Environmental change and population increase are the two 

primary factors that have been identified as causal factors in prehistoric culture change. 

The records search for the project APE identified 131 archaeological sites, including prehistoric and 

historic sites. There were 367 architectural resources with most occurring in urban areas. Several of 

the prehistoric sites are habitation sites—variously referred to as shell mounds, shell middens, and 

large flaked and ground stone scatters4

 with midden5 accumulations but also including sites where 

house pits were noted. Many of these habitation sites (the shell mounds around San Francisco Bay in 

particular) contain Native American burials. Burials are noted on some of the site records within the 

APE. Other types of sites identified in the APE include bedrock mortars, lithic scatters, ground stone 

scatters, and fire-affected rock scatters. The historic archaeological sites identified within the APE 

 

4 Ground stone scatter refers to a site containing milling equipment, including handstones, mortars, and pestles. 

5 Midden refers to a mound or deposit containing shells, animal bones, and other refuse that indicates the site of a human 

settlement. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.12 Cultural Resources and Paleontological Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.12-9

include debris and features associated with nineteenth and early twentieth-century housing 

developments, farm complexes, industrial activities, and the San Francisco earthquake of 1906. The 

first location of Mission Santa Clara de Asís, near the Santa Clara train station, has both prehistoric 

and historic components. 

Historic-era Properties and Historical Resources 

Historic buildings in and near the program route alternatives date from the eighteenth century to the 

twentieth century, although the vast majority date to the early twentieth century. These 

properties/resources were constructed during the major historic periods of California history, 

including the exploration and settlement of the Spanish and Mexican eras; the US-Mexican War, the 

Gold Rush, and statehood in the mid-nineteenth century; and subsequent settlement and 

development of California through the mid-twentieth century. The property types also vary widely, 

but most are dwellings, commercial buildings, or industrial facilities that date to the 1890s and after. 

Properties/resources dating to before 1890 largely consist of a few remaining adobe structures and 

sites dating to the Mexican period prior to 1848 and wood-frame dwellings and commercial buildings 

from the period between 1849 and 1890. 

The oldest standing elements of the built environment in California date to the eighteenth century, 

during the period when California was a Spanish colony. Spanish exploration and settlement began 

in 1769 with the Portola Expedition and continued with the establishment of 21 missions and several 

presidios (forts) and pueblos (towns) near the coast between San Diego and Sonoma. One of the 

missions, Santa Clara, is located near the proposed project alignment alternative. The first location 

of Mission Santa Clara de Asís is an archaeological site with both prehistoric and historic components. 

It lies near an HST alignment alternative. (See Chapter 2, “Alternatives,” for maps of the routes). 

The Spanish made land grants to retired soldiers and other Spanish citizens interested in settling the 

area. The Mexican government continued the land grant system after gaining independence from 

Spain in 1821 and dissolving the mission system in 1834. The presidios and pueblos founded during 

the Spanish/Mexican period, including San Francisco, San Jose, Los Angeles, and San Diego, grew 

slowly during the 1830s and 1840s, and relatively few properties/resources are predicted for the HST 

routes that pass through these cities. 

The United States acquired California upon the ratification of the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo at the 

close of the Mexican War in 1848. The subsequent gold rush of 1849 lured immigrants to the west 

coast from across the United States and around the world. California became a state in 1850, and it 

continued to grow in population as completion of the transcontinental railroad in 1869 brought more 

settlers. New towns developed across the state in the nineteenth century but were especially 

clustered along the state’s railroad routes. Some of these properties/historical resources (such as 

dwellings, businesses, factories, and other buildings and structures from the Victorian era) remain 

along the various HST Alignment Alternatives. 

The early twentieth century saw continued urban expansion in both northern and southern California, 

especially in conjunction with the first widespread use of automobiles. Popular residential 

architectural styles during this period included the Craftsman bungalow, the Spanish Colonial Revival, 

and other revival styles. The increasing use of automobiles also led to construction of linear 

commercial strips and other roadside development along arterials, although industry and major 

shipping facilities largely remained clustered along rail lines and maritime ports. By the late 1930s 

and during World War II, dwellings, commercial, industrial, and public buildings were often designed 

in the Art Deco Style (or the related Art, Zigzag, or Streamline Moderne styles). The construction 

boom of the post-war period brought residences in the Ranch style with an open plan and attached 

garage, often laid out in expansive suburbs of builders’ tract homes. Regional malls and shopping 

centers developed on the outskirts of communities, while the industrial and shipping facilities of the 

post-war period became more intermodal as trucking competed with rail and sea transportation. The 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.12 Cultural Resources and Paleontological Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.12-10

areas along the HST Alignment Alternatives contain properties/resources of each of these types and 

from each decade of the twentieth century.

By far, the largest concentrations of historic buildings, structures, objects, sites, districts, and cultural 

landscapes (or potential historic properties/historical resources) in this region are in the urban 

centers of San Jose, San Francisco, and Oakland, but resources of all types appear throughout the 

region. A certain number of properties/resources appear in other towns, and to a lesser extent, in 

the rural countryside of the Santa Clara and Central valleys. Towns that were important local trade 

centers in the late nineteenth century, like Stockton and Merced, exhibit concentrations of historical 

resources along the project alignment alternatives. Rural historic properties and historical resources 

that appear along the HST Alignment Alternatives include farm and ranch complexes and 

infrastructure elements (such as water conveyance systems, bridges, industrial complexes, and rail 

stations). 

Traditional Cultural Properties

Information regarding traditional cultural properties was derived from the NAHC’s review of the 

Sacred Land files, the Native American Outreach Workshop, presentations at public hearings on the 

statewide Program EIR/EIS process, and formal comments received on the statewide Draft Program 

EIR/EIS. 

Based on their review of the Sacred Lands file during the statewide Program EIR/EIS, the NAHC 

identified no traditional cultural properties near the project’s APE. Letters were distributed to Native 

American contacts provided by the NAHC that asked for information identifying traditional cultural 

properties that could be affected by the project. No direct reply to the contact letters was received. 

At Native American Outreach Workshops held for the statewide Program EIR/EIS, attendees provided 

information concerning potentially sensitive resources and concerns. At the San Luis Recreation Area 

workshop, concerns were raised about potential impacts on sensitive cultural resources along the 

HST Pacheco Pass alignment alternatives, both through the mountains and in the Santa Clara Valley 

between Gilroy and Morgan Hill. At public hearings held for the Statewide Program EIR/EIS, written 

comments were received representing tribal concerns and requesting continued involvement and 

consultation on subsequent planning and construction of the project. The comments also provided 

perspective on traditional tribal territories for the Amah Mutsun and Yokuts—tribes within the Bay 

Area to Central Valley project area. 

Additional Native American consultation in the form of a request for review of the NAHC Sacred Lands 

file and additional letters to Native American potential contacts provided by the NAHC would be 

conducted as part of the formal consultation process during future project-level studies. 

Paleontological Resources 

California’s rich geologic record and complex geologic history has resulted in exposure of many rock 

units with high paleontologic sensitivity at the surface. The fossil record in California is exceptionally 

prolific; abundant fossils representing a diverse range of organisms have been recovered from rocks 

as old as 1 billion years to as recent as 11,000 years. These fossils have provided key data for 

charting the course of the evolution and extinction of various types of life on the planet, both locally 

and globally, as well as for determining paleoenvironmental conditions, sequences and timing of 

sedimentary deposition, and other details of geologic history. 

The major fossil-bearing units in the Bay Area to Central Valley region include the Irvington Gravels, 

Livermore Gravels, Merced Formation, Santa Clara Formation, Tulare Formation, Tehama Formation, 

Pinole Tuff, San Pablo Formation, Orinda Formation and Siesta Formation (Contra Costa Group), 

Briones Formation (San Pablo Group), Markley Sandstone, Nortonville Shale, Martinez Formation, 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.12 Cultural Resources and Paleontological Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.12-11

Panoche Formation, Quinto Formation, Chico Formation, Franciscan Formation, Modesto-Riverbank 

Formations, and the Turlock Lake-Laguna Formations. The Pleistocene and Miocene age geologic 

units are units with a high potential for containing vertebrate fossils or noteworthy occurrences of 

invertebrate or plant fossils. 

3.12.3 Environmental Consequences 

A. NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE 

The No Project Alternative is composed of transportation projects other than the proposed HST 

system that are projected to be completed between the time of this Program EIR/EIS and 2020, 

including local, state, and interstate transportation system improvements designated in existing plans 

and programs. No additional impacts on cultural resources would occur under No Project beyond 

those addressed in environmental documents for those projects. 

Because it was not realistically feasible for this Program EIR/EIS to identify or quantify all the impacts 

on or mitigation activities for cultural resources associated with all of the projects considered as part 

of the No Project Alternative, it is assumed that the existing condition is representative of No Project 

conditions. It is possible that other transportation projects (not including the HST Alignment 

Alternatives) may impact some existing cultural resources by 2020, and that these changes to the 

baseline would be described and quantified in subsequent environmental analysis and reflected in 

future database information. This Program EIR/EIS addresses the general potential for the proposed 

project to affect or impact cultural resources as they exist at present and uses this information to 

compare the potential for impacts from the alternatives evaluated. 

HIGH SPEED TRAIN ALTERNATIVE 

Table 3.12-1 reports a summary of the sensitivity ranking assigned to each alignment alternative and 

number of recorded cultural resources present within the APE. One apparent pattern in the data is 

that the alignment alternatives within the San Francisco to San Jose and Oakland to San Jose 

Corridors have overall higher sensitivity ratings than the alignment alternatives in the Central Valley 

Corridor that extend from Stockton to Madera. Urban areas in the Bay Area, such as San Francisco, 

Oakland, and San Jose, have a high density of cultural resources that includes prehistoric, historic, 

and architectural resources. 

The potential for impacts to paleontologic resources for each of the HST Alignment Alternatives 

would be directly related to the sensitivity of geologic units crossed. Actual impacts would be related 

closely to the placement of major excavations (cuts, tunnels, borrow pits, and foundations) relative to 

the geographic positions of sensitive geologic units and known fossil localities. These factors would 

be addressed during subsequent analyses. Table 3.12-1 also reports the sensitivity rating for 

encountering paleontological resources. 

Additional data related to cultural resources and paleontological resources is provided in Appendix 

3.12-A. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 3.12-1. Cultural Resources Summary Data Table for 

Alignment Alternatives and Station Location Option Comparisons 

Corridor 

Possible 

Alignments Alignment Number of Recorded Archaeological Resources Number of Recorded Architectural Resources Traditional Cultural Properties Cultural Resource

Ranking (Hi

Medium, Lo

San Francisco to San Jose: Caltrain 1 of 1 San Francisco to Dumbarton 16 35 No High 

1 of 1 Dumbarton to San Jose 10 24 No High (buria

Mission) 

Station Location Options Transbay Transit Center 0 2 No High* 4th and King (Caltrain) 0 0 No High* Millbrae/SFO 0 1 No High Redwood City (Caltrain) 0 0 No Low Palo Alto (Caltrain) 0 1 No Medium Oakland to San Jose: Niles/I-880 

1 of 2 

West Oakland to Niles Junction 6 18 No High 12th Street/ City Center 

to Niles Junction 11 21 No High 

1 of 2 

Niles Junction to San Jose via Trimble 11 20 No High (buria

Mission) 

Niles Junction to San Jose via I-880 2 2 No Low 

Station Location Options West Oakland/7th Street 0 0 No Low 12th Street/City Center 0 0 No Medium* Coliseum/Airport 0 0 No Low Union City (BART) 0 0 No Low Fremont (Warm Springs) 0 0 No Low 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Corridor 

Possible 

Alignments Alignment Number of Recorded Archaeological Resources Number of Recorded Architectural Resources Traditional Cultural Properties Cultural Resource

Ranking (Hi

Medium, Lo

San Jose to Central Valley: Pacheco Pass 

1 of 1 Pacheco 7 4 No Medium 1 of 3 

Henry Miller (UPRR Connection) 1 4 No Medium 

Henry Miller (BNSF Connection) 1 4 No Medium GEA North 4 5 No Medium (bur

San Jose (Diridon) 0 1 No Medium Morgan Hill (Caltrain) 0 0 No Low Gilroy (Caltrain) 0 0 No Low East Bay to Central Valley: Altamont Pass 

1 of 4 

I-680/ 580/UPRR 8 12 No Medium I-580/ UPRR 6 11 No Medium (mul

burials) 

Patterson Pass/UPRR 3 3 No Low UPRR 5 1 No Low 

1 of 4 

Tracy Downtown (BNSF Connection) 6 8 No Low 

Tracy ACE Station (BNSF Connection) 2 13 No Low Tracy ACE Station (UPRR Connection) 2 10 No Low Tracy Downtown (UPRR Connection) 6 5 No Low 

2 of 2 East Bay Connections 0 0 No Low 

Station Location Options Pleasanton (I-680/Bernal Rd) 0 0 No Low Pleasanton (BART) 0 0 No Low 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Corridor 

Possible 

Alignments Alignment Number of Recorded Archaeological Resources Number of Recorded Architectural Resources Traditional Cultural Properties Cultural Resource

Ranking (Hi

Medium, Lo

Livermore (Downtown) 0 0 No Low Livermore (I-580) 0 0 No Low Livermore (Greenville Road/UPRR) 0 0 No Low Livermore (Greenville Road/I-580) 0 0 No Low Tracy (Downtown) 0 0 No Low Tracy (ACE) 0 0 No Low San Francisco Bay Crossings 1 of 2 

Trans Bay Crossing – Transbay Transit Center 1 2 No Low Trans Bay Crossing – 4th& King 0 0 No Low 

1 of 6 

Dumbarton (High Bridge) 0 0 No Low 

Dumbarton (Low Bridge) 0 0 No Low Dumbarton (Tube) 0 0 No Low Fremont Central Park (High Bridge) 0 0 No Low Fremont Central Park (Low Bridge) 0 0 No Low Fremont Central Park (Tube) 0 0 No Low 

Union City (Shinn) 0 0 No Low 

Central Valley 

1 of 6 

BNSF – UPRR 1 27 No Low BNSF 1 16 No Low UPRR N/S 4 63 No Medium BNSF Castle 1 20 No Low UPRR – BNSF Castle 4 20 No Medium UPRR – BNSF 4 27 No Medium 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Corridor 

Possible 

Alignments Alignment Number of Recorded Archaeological Resources Number of Recorded Architectural Resources Traditional Cultural Properties Cultural Resource

Ranking (Hi

Medium, Lo

Station Location Options Modesto (Downtown) 0 0 No Medium* Briggsmore (Amtrak) 0 0 No Low Merced (Downtown) 0 0 No Medium* Castle AFB 0 0 No Low Note: * Based on knowledge and experience in the area of the APE. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.12 Cultural Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.12-16

San Francisco to San Jose Corridor

San Francisco to Dumbarton Alignment Alternative 

This alignment alternative has a high density of cultural resources within the city of San Francisco. In 

total, there are 16 archaeological resources and 35 recorded architectural resources. The area has 

been developed since the 1850s and therefore is rich in historical architecture as well as 

archaeological sites. The majority of prehistoric sites are shell middens, and many of the historical 

sites are deposits from various activities dating from the late 1800s as well as the earthquake in 

1906. The alignment alternative in San Francisco goes through numerous historic districts, including 

the 2nd Street District, the Aronson District, and the Rincon Point/South Beach District (City and 

County of San Francisco Planning Department 2004). This portion of the alignment alternative 

includes the 1925 Army-Navy YMCA building, the 1950 Sailors Union of the Pacific building, the 1910 

Commercial Block Building, the 1937 Metropolitan Electric building, the World War II era 3rd Street 

Retail Office Building, the China Basin Warehouse (ca. 1892), the Coal Gasification Facility (ca. 1900), 

and the Burlingame Commercial Building (ca. 1920s). This portion also contains the 1939 Transbay 

Terminal and Transbay Terminal Loop Ramp (URS 2006). The historic Transbay Terminal will be 

replaced with a new structure as part of the new Transbay Transit Center sometime between 2008 

and 2014. This alignment alternative has a high sensitivity for prehistoric, historical, and 

architectural resources. No traditional cultural properties were identified within the APE. 

The overall paleontological sensitivity within this alignment alternative is low. Nonsensitive 

Franciscan sandstone, Quaternary alluvium, and artificial bay fill underlies this alignment alternative. 

The existing Caltrain right-of–way extends across nonsensitive Quaternary alluvium. 

Dumbarton to San Jose Alignment Alternative 

This alignment alternative has a low density of previously recorded cultural resources until it reaches 

San Jose, where it has a high density of cultural resources. A total of 10 archaeological resources 

and 24 architectural resources are located within the APE. These include a 1927 commercial 

building, the 1941 Silver Springs Underpass, the 1898 Sunol Aqueduct, the 1861 Sanborn/Bunting 

House, segments of the San Francisco and San Jose Railroad (ca.1860s), and recorded residential 

properties from the 1890s to the 1940s. The alignment alternative also contains additional historic 

structures including the city of Mountain View adobe (ca. 1933), the FMC complex in San Jose (ca. 

1948), the Union Pacific Rail yard Complex (ca. 1925), and recorded residential buildings dated from 

the 1880s to the 1940s. One archaeological site in San Jose, the Santa Clara de Asis Mission, 

includes both prehistoric and historic resources. The Mission was built by the Spanish in the late 

eighteenth century in order to convert local Native Americans to Christianity. Many of the neophyte 

converts lived in villages on the perimeter of the mission complex resulting in a mix of historical and 

prehistoric archaeological deposits, including burials. The portion of the Dumbarton to San Jose 

alignment alternative that traverses San Jose has a high sensitivity for prehistoric, historical, and 

architectural resources. No traditional cultural properties were identified within the APE. 

Similar to the San Francisco to Dumbarton alignment alternative, this alignment alternative 

potentially has a low paleontological sensitivity.

San Francisco to San Jose Corridor Stations 

Three of the station location options have recorded cultural resources that are within the APE. 

Millbrae Train Station was built in 1907 after a fire that destroyed the original station built in 1864. It 

is now a railroad museum located approximately 200 ft from the modern train station. The Palo Alto 

train station was built in 1941 and included on the NRHP in 1996. The Transbay Transit Center APE 

includes the Transbay Terminal and the Transbay Terminal Loop Ramp. The station location options 

within San Francisco also have a large number of unrecorded architectural resources adjacent to 

them. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.12 Cultural Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.12-17

The overall paleontological sensitivity for each of the station location options is low. Specific impacts 

to paleontologic resources associated with construction of the station location options requires 

additional information concerning exact locations and subsurface geology. Additional paleontologic 

resources assessment would take place at the project level after the station designs are more fully 

defined. 

Oakland to San Jose Corridor

West Oakland to Niles Junction Alignment Alternative 

In total, there are six recorded archaeological sites and 18 recorded architectural resources within the 

APE of this alignment alternative. The majority of resources are located within the city of Oakland. 

These include the 1924 Clorox Chemical Building, the 1926 PG&E Gas Compressor House, industrial 

complexes dating from the 1920s and 1940s, and 12 recorded residential properties dating from the 

1880s to the 1940s. Prehistoric sites in this area tend to be shell middens and occupation sites. 

Historical sites as well as architectural resources are typically associated with the late 1800s to early 

1900s. The alignment alternative also traverses the Old Oakland Historic District. Portions of the 

alignment alternative outside Oakland have a medium to low sensitivity. This alignment alternative 

has a high density of cultural resources and has a high sensitivity for prehistoric, historic, and 

architectural resources. No traditional cultural properties were identified within the APE. 

About one third of this alignment alternative crosses high-sensitivity older Pleistocene alluvial 

deposits. The remaining length is underlain by low-sensitivity Quaternary alluvium. Overall, this 

alignment alternative would have a medium paleontological sensitivity. 

12th Street/City Center to Niles Junction Alignment Alternative 

This alignment alternative has the highest density of cultural resources within this corridor. In total, 

there are 11 recorded archaeological sites and 21 recorded architectural resources within the APE. 

As in the West Oakland to Niles Junction alignment alternative, the majority of resources are located 

within the city of Oakland. These include the White Brothers’ Hardwood Store (ca. 1927), the WeldRite Company Building (ca. 1925), the Art Moderne Sales office building (ca. 1938), and 18 recorded 

residential properties dating from the 1880s to the 1920s. This alignment alternative has a high 

sensitivity for prehistoric, historical, and architectural resources. No traditional cultural properties 

were identified within the APE. 

Similar to the West Oakland to Niles Junction alignment alternative, this alignment alternative 

potentially has a medium paleontological sensitivity.

Niles Junction to San Jose via Trimble Alignment Alternative 

This alignment alternative has the second highest density of cultural resources within this corridor. 

In total, there are three recorded archaeological sites and eight recorded architectural resources 

within the APE. As in the Dumbarton to San Jose alignment alternative, the majority of resources are 

located within San Jose, which includes the Santa Clara de Asis Mission. This portion of the project 

includes the Kraft Foods plant (ca.1950), the Moderne Factory building (ca. 1940), and recorded 

residential properties. The portion of this alignment alternative that traverses San Jose has a high 

sensitivity for prehistoric, historical, and architectural resources. No traditional cultural properties 

were identified within the APE. 

About one third of this alignment alternative crosses high-sensitivity older Pleistocene alluvial 

deposits east of the Hayward Fault. The exact alignment alternative could greatly influence impacts 

along this reach. The alignment alternative also crosses an area of Pleistocene alluvium and a short 

segment of Holocene intertidal deposits of low sensitivity. In the south part of the alignment 

alternative just north of West Trimble Road and the Mineta San Jose Airport, the remains of a 

Pleistocene mammoth were discovered in 2005. The area along the Guadalupe River would have a 

high paleontological sensitivity. (U.S. Geological Survey 2006b). 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.12 Cultural Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.12-18

Niles Junction to San Jose via I-880 Alignment Alternative 

This alignment alternative has two archaeological resources and two recorded architectural resources 

dating from 1928 and 1945. It has a medium sensitivity for archaeological and architectural 

resources. No traditional cultural properties were identified within the APE. 

About one third of this segment crosses high-sensitivity older Pleistocene alluvial deposits east of the 

Hayward Fault. Elsewhere, the alignment alternative crosses an area of Pleistocene alluvium and a 

short segment of Holocene intertidal deposits of low sensitivity. Similar to the Niles Junction to San 

Jose via Trimble alignment alternative, this alignment alternative potentially has a high 

paleontological sensitivity along the Guadalupe River. 

Oakland to San Jose Corridor Station Location Options 

 One of the station location options has recorded cultural resources that are within the APE or directly 

adjacent to the APE. Diridon Station was constructed in 1935 and added to the NRHP in 1993. The 

station location options within Oakland do not have recorded cultural resources within the APE but 

have a large number of unrecorded architectural resources adjacent to them. No traditional cultural 

properties were identified within the APE. 

The overall paleontological sensitivity for the station location options in this corridor is low, except for 

the Union City (BART) and Fremont (Warm Springs) station location options, which is high. Specific 

impacts to paleontologic resources associated with construction of the station location options require 

additional information concerning exact locations and subsurface geology. Additional paleontologic 

resources assessment would take place at the project level after the station designs are more fully 

defined. 

San Jose to Central Valley Corridor

Pacheco Alignment Alternative 

This alignment alternative roughly follows Highway 152 through the Pacheco Pass. Little 

development has taken place in this area. In total, four recorded architectural resources were found 

to be located within the project APE. Of these, two are historic canals and one is a bridge. There are 

also likely historic resources in the Santa Clara Valley, including Morgan Hill and Gilroy. Seven 

previously recorded archaeological resources are located within the APE. Three of them are small 

prehistoric sites that typically include midden and lithic debitage. Though little archaeological work 

has been conducted in this area, it is known to be highly sensitive for prehistoric archaeological 

resources. Overall, this alignment alternative has medium sensitivity for cultural resources. No 

traditional cultural properties were identified within the APE. 

This alignment alternative extends through areas mapped as Franciscan ultramafic rocks and 

Quaternary terrace and alluvium, all ranking low in paleontological sensitivity. A portion of the 

alignment alternative near Gilroy passes through Plio-Pleistocene alluvial deposits similar to those 

which have yielded vertebrate fossils elsewhere and is assigned high sensitivity. The remaining 

portion falls on nonsensitive lower and upper Cretaceous marine rocks. Overall, this alignment 

alternative was identified to have a low sensitivity for paleontological resources. 

Henry Miller (UPRR Connection) Alignment Alternative 

The majority of this alignment alternative is in Merced County in the Central Valley. Much of the area 

has seen little development historically. Previously recorded resources present include one 

archaeological site and four architectural resources. Overall, this alignment alternative has a medium 

sensitivity for cultural resources. No traditional cultural properties were identified within the APE. 

In the vicinity of San Luis Reservoir, the alignment alternative crosses the Los Banos Alluvium, a 

sensitive unit that could include vertebrate fossils. The Pacheco and Modesto Formations along this 

alignment alternative warrant a medium sensitivity ranking. The remaining length of the alignment 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.12 Cultural Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.12-19

alternative to the UPRR connection falls within the Franciscan Group, San Luis Ranch Alluvium, Dos 

Palos Alluvium, and artificial fill, none of which are sensitive for paleontological resources. Overall, 

this alignment alternative was identified to have a low sensitivity for paleontological resources. 

Henry Miller (BNSF Connection) Alignment Alternative 

This alignment alternative would have the same known resources as identified for the Henry Miller 

(UPRR Connection) alignment alternative. 

This alignment alternative would have similar paleontological sensitivity as the Henry Miller (UPRR 

Connection) alignment alternative. 

GEA North Alignment Alternative 

This alignment alternative is in Merced County in the Central Valley. Much of the area has seen little 

development historically. Previously recorded resources present include four archaeological sites and 

five architectural resources. All four of the archaeological resources are prehistoric sites, including a 

habitation site and human burials just west of the city of Merced. Overall, this alignment alternative 

has medium sensitivity for cultural resources. No traditional cultural properties were identified within 

the APE. 

In the vicinity of San Luis Reservoir, the alignment alternative crosses the Los Banos Alluvium, a 

sensitive unit that could include vertebrate fossils. The remaining length of the alignment alternative 

to the UPRR or BNSF connection falls within formations that are not sensitive for paleontological 

resources. Overall, this alignment alternative was identified to have a low sensitivity for 

paleontological resources. 

San Jose to Central Valley Corridor Station Location Options 

Only the San Jose Diridon station location option within this corridor has a recorded architectural 

resource that is within the APE or directly adjacent to the APE. No traditional cultural properties were 

identified within the APE. 

The overall paleontological sensitivity for each of the station location options is low. Specific impacts 

to paleontologic resources associated with construction of the station location options requires 

additional information concerning exact locations and subsurface geology. Additional paleontologic 

resources assessment would take place at the project level after the station designs are more fully 

defined. 

East Bay to Central Valley Corridor

I-680/580/UPRR Alignment Alternative 

This alignment alternative spans from the eastern Bay Area to the Livermore Valley and has the 

highest density of cultural resources within this corridor. Much of the area has seen recent 

development. Along this alignment alternative, there are eight previously recorded archaeological 

sites. There are 12 recorded architectural resources, including the Western Pacific Railroad Buildings 

(ca. 1909), the Kennedy Ranch (ca. 1890), and 10 residential (mainly Craftsman) properties dating 

from 1910 to 1940. The archaeological resources are prehistoric sites. Overall, this alignment 

alternative has medium sensitivity for cultural resources. No traditional cultural properties were 

identified within the APE. 

This alignment alternative extends through approximately 7 miles of Pleistocene alluvium and 

sediments and approximately 2 miles of Miocene sedimentary rock, all of which may have a high 

sensitivity for paleontological resources. The remaining length of the alignment alternative falls 

within formations that are not sensitive for paleontological resources. Overall, this alignment 

alternative was identified to have a high sensitivity for paleontological resources. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.12 Cultural Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.12-20

I-580/UPRR Alignment Alternative 

The Livermore Valley has seen little archaeological work until recently though it is known to be rich in 

prehistoric resources, including large habitation sites and burials. Several unrecorded burials are 

located immediately adjacent to the APE just west of the city of Livermore. Previously recorded 

resources within the alignment alternative include six archaeological sites and 11 architectural 

resources. Recorded resources include a 1947 industrial warehouse, the Quonset Warehouse (ca. 

1950s), the West Altamont Underpass (ca. 1909), and eight recorded residential properties dating 

between 1890 and the 1930s. The archaeological resources are prehistoric sites. Overall, this 

alignment alternative has medium sensitivity for cultural resources. No traditional cultural properties 

were identified within the APE. 

This alignment alternative also extends through approximately 7 miles of Pleistocene alluvium and 

sediments and over 2 miles of Miocene sedimentary rock, all of which may have a high sensitivity for 

paleontological resources. Overall, this alignment alternative was identified to have a medium 

sensitivity for paleontological resources. 

Patterson Pass/UPRR Alignment Alternative 

This alignment alternative includes three previously recorded archaeological resources and three 

architectural resources. Overall, this alignment alternative has low sensitivity for cultural resources. 

No traditional cultural properties were identified within the APE. 

This alignment alternative extends through approximately 2 miles of Pleistocene alluvium and 

sediments and over 9 miles of Miocene sedimentary deposits along Patterson Pass. Overall, this 

alignment alternative was identified to have a low sensitivity for paleontological resources. 

UPRR Alignment Alternative 

This alignment alternative includes five previously recorded archaeological resources and one 

architectural resource. Overall, this alignment alternative has low sensitivity for cultural resources. 

No traditional cultural properties were identified within the APE. 

This alignment alternative extends through approximately 2.5 miles of Pleistocene alluvium and 

sediments and approximately 1 mile of Miocene sedimentary deposits. Overall, this alignment 

alternative was identified to have a medium sensitivity for paleontological resources. 

Tracy Downtown (BNSF Connection) Alignment Alternative 

This alignment alternative includes eight previously recorded archaeological resources and 10 

architectural resources. Some of the archaeological sites are prehistoric and include midden sites 

with few to no artifacts or related materials. The majority of the architectural resources are located 

south of Tracy. Overall, this alignment alternative has a low sensitivity for cultural resources. No 

traditional cultural properties were identified within the APE. 

The west end of this alignment alternative extends through more than 2 miles of Miocene 

sedimentary deposits. The remaining length of the alignment alternative falls within formations that 

are not sensitive for paleontological resources. Overall, this alignment alternative was identified to 

have a low sensitivity for paleontological resources. 

Tracy ACE Station (BNSF Connection) Alignment Alternative 

This alignment alternative includes two previously recorded archaeological resources and 13 

architectural resources. Recorded resources include eight World War II era warehouses, a 1952 U.S. 

Army Depot flagpole, and four U.S. Army Depot buildings from the 1950s. Some of the 

archaeological sites are prehistoric and include midden sites with few to no artifacts or related 

materials. The majority of the architectural resources are located south of Lathrop. Overall, this 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.12 Cultural Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.12-21

alignment alternative has low sensitivity for cultural resources. No traditional cultural properties were 

identified within the APE. 

The west end of this alignment alternative extends through approximately 6 miles of Miocene 

sedimentary deposits. The remaining length of the alignment alternative falls within formations that 

are not sensitive for paleontological resources. This alignment alternative, along with the Tracy ACE 

Station (UPRR Connection) alignment alternative, would have the highest potential to affect 

paleontological resources compared to the other alignment alternatives within this corridor. Overall, 

this alignment alternative was identified to have a low sensitivity for paleontological resources. 

Tracy ACE Station (UPRR Connection) Alignment Alternative 

This alignment alternative includes two previously recorded archaeological resources and 10 

architectural resources. Similar to the other Tracy alignment alternatives, the archaeological 

resources include midden sites, and the majority of the architectural resources are located south of 

Lathrop. Overall, this alignment alternative has low sensitivity for cultural resources. No traditional 

cultural properties were identified within the APE. 

The west end of this alignment alternative extends through approximately 6 miles of Miocene 

sedimentary deposits similar to the Tracy ACE Station (BNSF Connection) alignment alternative. 

Overall, this alignment alternative was identified to have a low sensitivity for paleontological 

resources. 

Tracy Downtown (UPRR Connection) Alignment Alternative 

This alignment alternative includes eight previously recorded archaeological resources and seven 

recorded architectural resources. These include an undated wooden Western Pacific Railroad trestle, 

two industrial warehouses from the 1950s, residential properties from the 1940s, and an undated 

farmstead property. Similar to the Tracy Downtown (BNSF Connection) alignment alternative, the 

archaeological resources include midden sites, and the majority of the architectural resources are 

located south of Tracy. Overall, this alignment alternative has a low sensitivity for cultural resources. 

No traditional cultural properties were identified within the APE. 

The west end of this alignment alternative extends through approximately over 2 miles of Miocene 

sedimentary deposits similar to the Tracy Downtown (BNSF Connection) alignment alternative. 

Overall, this alignment alternative was identified to have a low sensitivity for paleontological 

resources. 

East Bay Connections Alignment Alternative 

The East Bay Connections alignment alternative is not known to have cultural resources that are 

within the APE or directly adjacent to the APE. No traditional cultural properties were identified 

within the APE. 

This alignment alternative would extend through approximately 1,000 ft of Pleistocene alluvium 

deposits and about one mile of Miocene sedimentary deposits. These units may have a high 

sensitivity to paleontological resources. 

East Bay to Central Valley Corridor Station Location Options 

Based on the archival records search, none of the station location options have cultural resources 

that are within the APE or directly adjacent to the APE. The station location options were found to 

have a low sensitivity for cultural resources. No traditional cultural properties were identified within 

the APE. 

The overall paleontological sensitivity for the stations in this corridor is low, except for the Livermore 

(I-580) and Livermore (Greenville Road/I-580) stations, which are high. Specific impacts to 

paleontologic resources associated with construction of the station location options require additional 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.12 Cultural Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.12-22

information concerning exact locations and subsurface geology. Additional paleontologic resources 

assessment would take place at the project level after the station designs are more fully defined. 

San Francisco Bay Crossings Corridor

Trans Bay Crossing – Transbay Transit Center Alignment Alternative 

Most of this alignment alternative is below the San Francisco Bay and therefore has very low 

sensitivity for archaeological resources. However, the terrestrial portions are highly sensitive for both 

historical archaeological deposits and architectural resources. One resource, the Transbay Terminal, 

was built in 1939 as a California Toll Bridge Authority facility in order to facilitate commuter rail travel 

across the lower portion of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge. The historic Transbay Terminal 

will be replaced along with the Transbay Terminal Loop Ramp with a new structure as part of the 

new Transbay Transit Center sometime between 2008 and 2014. Another resource within the APE is 

the Historic Ferry Building. Originally constructed in 1903, it was the second busiest transportation 

terminal in the world during the 1930s. Previous subsurface archaeological testing has revealed that 

much of the area is rich with historic artifacts from the Gold Rush period through the 1906 

earthquake and resulting fire. This alignment alternative also traverses the Embarcadero Piers 

Historic District (City and County of San Francisco Planning Department 2004). No traditional cultural 

properties were identified within or adjacent to the APE. 

This alignment alternative would extend through mud deposits and Quaternary dune sand deposits. 

Because of the low likelihood of these units containing significant paleontological resources, this 

alignment alternative has a low paleontological sensitivity. 

Trans Bay Crossing – 4th and King Alignment Alternative 

Like the Trans Bay Crossing – Transbay Transit Center alignment alternative, this alignment 

alternative is below the San Francisco Bay and therefore has very low sensitivity for archaeological 

resources. However, the terrestrial portions are highly sensitive for both historical archaeological 

deposits and architectural resources. Previous subsurface archaeological testing has revealed that 

much of the area is rich with historic artifacts from the Gold Rush period through the 1906 

earthquake and resulting fire. No traditional cultural properties were identified within or adjacent to 

the APE. 

This alignment alternative would have similar paleontological sensitivity as the Trans Bay Crossing – 

Transbay Transit Center alignment alternative. 

Dumbarton Alignment Alternative (High Bridge, Low Bridge, Tube) 

Four recorded archaeological resources were identified along this alignment alternative. The 

prehistoric sites include a habitation site associated with burials, while the historic sites resulted from 

early 1900s industrial activities. No recorded architectural resources were identified in the records 

search for this alignment alternative. The cultural resources sensitivity for this alignment alternative 

is low. No traditional cultural properties were identified within or adjacent to the APE. 

This alignment alternative would extend through mud deposits and Quaternary dune sand deposits 

on the San Francisco and Oakland side of the Bay, which have low sensitivity for paleontological 

resources. The alignment alternative would also extend through a small portion of Pleistocene 

alluvium on the Oakland side of the Bay, which has a high sensitivity for paleontological resources. 

Overall, this alignment alternative has a low paleontological sensitivity. 

Freemont Central Park Alignment Alternative (High Bridge, Low Bridge, Tube) 

No recorded archaeological or architectural resources were identified in the records search for of this 

alignment alternative. No traditional cultural properties were identified within or adjacent to the APE. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.12 Cultural Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.12-23

This alignment alternative is generally similar in paleontological sensitivity as the Dumbarton 

alignment alternative except where the alignment alternative would extend through Pleistocene 

alluvium on the Oakland side of the Bay. This alignment alternative extends for about a mile through 

this unit, which has a high paleontological sensitivity. Overall, this alignment alternative has a low 

paleontological sensitivity. 

Central Valley Corridor

BNSF/UPRR Alignment Alternative 

This alignment alternative and all of those within this corridor trend north-south through the Central 

Valley beginning south of Stockton to just south of Chowchilla. This alignment alternative generally 

follows existing railroad lines. In total, there is one previously recorded archaeological resource and 

27 architectural resources. These include a 1947 railroad trestle, a 1950 flatcar railroad bridge, 

Robertson Boulevard (ca. 1913); Redrock Winery (ca. 1920); Le Grand Canal (ca. 1910), and 22 

recorded residential properties dating between 1920 and the 1940s. Most of the architectural 

resources are within the cities of Escalon and Chowchilla. Overall, this alignment alternative has low 

sensitivity for cultural resources. No traditional cultural properties were identified within the APE. 

This alignment alternative would cross Quaternary dune sand deposits between Atwater and Merced. 

Because of the low likelihood of these units containing significant paleontological resources, this 

alignment alternative has a low potential to encounter paleontological deposits. 

BNSF Alignment Alternative 

Similar to the BNSF/UPRR alignment alternative, this alignment alternative generally follows existing 

railroad lines. In total, there is one previously recorded archaeological resource and 16 recorded 

architectural resources. These include the 1912 Escalon Water and Auxiliary Water Systems; the 

1935 Escalon Sanitary Sewer System; portions of the 1895 Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railroad; 

Bud’s Frosties (ca. 1946); Farmer Bill’s Produce (ca. 1940); and 11 recorded residential properties 

dating between 1910 and the 1940s. Most of the architectural resources are within or around the 

city of Escalon. Overall, this alignment alternative has low sensitivity for cultural resources. No 

traditional cultural properties were identified within the APE. 

Similar to the BNSF/UPRR alignment alternative, this alignment alternative has a low potential to 

encounter paleontological deposits. 

UPRR N/S Alignment Alternative 

Similar to the BNSF/UPRR alignment alternative, this alignment alternative generally follows existing 

railroad lines. In total, there are four previously recorded archaeological resources and 63 

architectural resources. Some of the archaeological resources are prehistoric sites, including a 

habitation site associated with burials, while the historic sites resulted from early 1900s industrial 

activities. Most of the architectural resources are around the communities of Delhi, Livingston, 

Atwater, and Chowchilla. There is a series of historic canals recorded in this portion of the alignment 

alternative including the Ashe Lateral (ca. 1890s), the Fairfield Canal (ca. 1910), the 1920 Arena 

Canal, and seven other unnamed canals dating to ca. 1900. There are also four freeway bridges 

dating from the 1940s. This portion includes la Fuentes Market (ca.1940) and A.V. Produce (ca. 

1925), as well as 43 recorded residential properties dating from the 1890s to the 1950s. Overall, this 

alignment alternative has medium sensitivity for cultural resources. No traditional cultural properties 

were identified within the APE. 

Similar to the BNSF/UPRR alignment alternative, this alignment alternative has a low potential to 

encounter paleontological deposits. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.12 Cultural Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.12-24

BNSF Castle Alignment Alternative 

Similar to the BNSF/UPRR alignment alternative, this alignment alternative generally follows existing 

railroad lines. In total, there is one previously recorded archaeological resource and 20 architectural 

resources. Most of the architectural resources are within the cities of Escalon and Chowchilla, such 

as the Escalon Motel (ca. 1940s), a 1926 Texaco Station, and Wright’s Petroleum (ca.1918). Some of 

the architectural resources are single-family residences (11 recorded) built in the early 1900s. There 

are also features associated with the railroad such as a 1909 wooden railroad trestle and portions of 

the Tidewater Southern Railroad dating from 1912. Overall, this alignment alternative has low 

sensitivity for cultural resources. No traditional cultural properties were identified within the APE. 

Similar to the BNSF/UPRR alignment alternative, this alignment alternative has a low potential to 

encounter paleontological deposits. 

UPRR-BNSF Castle Alignment Alternative 

Similar to the BNSF/UPRR alignment alternative, this alignment alternative generally follows existing 

railroad lines. In total, there are four previously recorded archaeological resources and 20 

architectural resources. The recorded architectural resources include the Riverbank Library (ca. 

1899), irrigation canals (ca. 1900), 1904 railroad bridge, 1910 farmstead, and numerous (13 

recorded) residential properties dating between 1900 and 1950. This portion also contains segments 

of the 1895 Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railroads. Some of the archaeological resources are 

prehistoric sites, including a habitation site associated with burials, while the historic sites resulted 

from early 1900s industrial activities. Most of the architectural resources are around the cities of 

Modesto and Merced. Overall, this alignment alternative has medium sensitivity for cultural 

resources. No traditional cultural properties were identified within the APE. 

Similar to the BNSF/UPRR alignment alternative, this alignment alternative has a low potential to 

encounter paleontological deposits. 

UPRR-BNSF Alignment Alternative 

Similar to the BNSF/UPRR alignment alternative, this alignment alternative generally follows existing 

railroad lines. There are four previously recorded archaeological resources within this alignment 

alternative and 27 recorded architectural resources, including three ca. 1940 highway bridges, 

abandoned segments of State Route 99 that are potentially historic, 1940s farms and associated 

structures, and numerous (19 recorded) residential properties dating between ca. 1900 and 1950. 

Some of the archaeological resources are prehistoric sites including a habitation site associated with 

burials, while others are historic sites resulting from early 1900s industrial activities. Most of the 

architectural resources are around Chowchilla. Overall, this alignment alternative has medium 

sensitivity for cultural resources. No traditional cultural properties were identified within the APE. 

Similar to the BNSF/UPRR alignment alternative, this alignment alternative has a low potential to 

encounter paleontological deposits. 

Central Valley Corridor Station Location Options 

Based on the archival records search, none of the station location options have known cultural 

resources that are within the APE or directly adjacent to the APE. Only the Modesto (Downtown) and 

Merced (Downtown) station location options were found to have a medium sensitivity for cultural 

resources. No traditional cultural properties were identified within the APE. 

The station location options within this corridor would be located within formations with a low 

likelihood of containing significant paleontological resources; therefore, the station location options 

would have a low potential to encounter paleontological deposits.
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.12 Cultural Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.12-25

3.12.4 Conclusion 

One factor that contributes to the difference in density of cultural resources for the various alignment 

alternatives should be considered—no archaeological surveys have been conducted. Much of the Central 

Valley has not been subjected to formal archaeological survey. This is also true for many of the 

alignment alternative areas that span between urban centers in the Bay Area. Because of this, there is 

potential for numerous unrecorded (mostly prehistoric) cultural resources to be located within the 

project-level APEs. A formal, systematic survey should be conducted prior to any ground disturbing 

activities. All previously recorded resources within the project-level APEs need to be evaluated for 

inclusion on the CRHR. 

3.12.5 Design Practices 

The Authority and FRA are committed to avoiding potential impacts to cultural resources through careful 

alignment alternative design and selection. The Authority is committed to avoiding impacts to cultural 

resources to the extent feasible and practical. 

The Authority would develop procedures for fieldwork, identification, evaluation, and determination of 

potential effects to cultural resources in consultation with SHPO and Native American tribes. Onsite 

monitoring is often incorporated in the fieldwork when sites are known or suspected of containing Native 

American human remains. The procedures need to comply with federal and state statutes concerning 

burials. 

3.12.6 Mitigation Strategies and CEQA Significance Conclusions 

Based on the analysis above, and considering the CEQA Appendix G thresholds of significance for cultural 

and historic resources, the HST Alignment Alternatives would have a potentially significant effect on 

cultural and historic resources when viewed on a systemwide basis. Although placing the alignment 

alternative for the HST system within or along existing transportation corridors reduces the potential for 

adverse effects to many resources, providing HST service to and placing potential station location options 

in metropolitan centers increases the potential for adverse impacts to cultural and historic resources. 

Additional avoidance and mitigation strategies would be applied in the project-level analyses. However, 

some cultural and historic resources would likely be adversely affected. At the program level of analysis, 

it is not possible to know precisely the location, extent, and particular characteristics of impacts to these 

resources. Because of this uncertainty, at the program-level of analysis the impact is considered 

significant. Mitigation strategies, as well as the design practices discussed in Section 3.12.7, Subsequent 

Analysis, would be applied to reduce these impacts. 

General mitigation strategies are discussed in this section as part of this program-level evaluation. The 

Authority and FRA would consult with SHPO to define and describe general procedures to be applied in 

the future for fieldwork, methods of analysis, and the development of specific mitigation measures to 

address effect and impacts on cultural resources, which would be reflected in a programmatic agreement 

between the Authority, FRA, and SHPO. The Authority and FRA would also continue to consult with 

Native American tribes concerning the proposed undertaking, as required by federal and state laws 

concerning the management of historic properties/historical resources. Mitigation measures would be 

required for adverse effects (significant under CEQA) on cultural resources that are listed, determined 

eligible for, or that appear to be eligible for listing in the NRHP or CRHR. The mitigation measures 

ultimately selected for this undertaking would meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and 

Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation (48 FR 44716-44740), as well as standards and 

guidelines for historic preservation activities established by the California SHPO. 

At the conclusion of the program-level environmental review process, the Authority and the FRA, in 

consultation with the SHPO, would develop a programmatic agreement (PA) to describe expectations for 

the next phase of fieldwork, eligibility determination, and documentation under Section 106 of NHPA and 

pursuant to CEQA. The PA may specify procedures for the identification and evaluation of impacts for 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.12 Cultural Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.12-26

future projects and the site-specific work that would be required during project-level environmental 

review. 

These potential measures provide two levels of mitigation and are organized by resource type. One level 

of mitigation strategies are those that, when implemented as conditions of project approval, would 

enable the project to avoid an adverse effect or impact. The other level of mitigation includes measures 

that would lessen the degree of adverse effect or impact. No one measure presented in this section 

would mitigate all adverse effects or impacts; however, some combination of these measures and others 

agreed to during the project phases of the program would emerge as the mitigation for this project. 

In general, there is a wide range of actions that can qualify as mitigation, depending on the type of 

project, the type of property, and impacts the project may have on cultural resources. The following list 

presents some of the principles that generally guide mitigation development in historic preservation 

practice.6

• Mitigation measures should correspond or be directly related to the resource being affected, rather 

than in a compensatory fashion that does not relate to the affected resource. 

• Mitigation should be consistent with the significance of the historic property and correspond to the 

severity of project effects on the historic property. 

• Mitigation must be relevant to the goals of historic preservation, rather than as an enhancement of 

the project to which it is related or as an enhancement to amenities unrelated to the affected 

properties. 

• Mitigation measures that are chosen should be a worthwhile use of public funds and provide a high 

degree of public benefit relative to the cost. 

• Mitigation measures should benefit the greatest number of people, particularly those members of the 

interested public rather than only those of a specialized audience or particular group. 

• Historic properties that would be demolished or greatly altered should be documented in permanent 

forms. 

At a program-level of analysis (as discussed above) it is not possible to know precisely the location, 

extent, and particular characteristics of impacts to cultural resources. Given that the impacts are 

considered significant, the following mitigation measures will be applied as appropriate. 

A. ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

The following are potential mitigation measures for eligible or listed archaeological sites: 

• Avoid the impact, and when avoidance cannot be accommodated, consider minimizing the scale 

of the impact. 

• Incorporate the site into parks or open space (PRC § 21083.2). 

• Cap or cover the site before construction. 

• Provide data recovery. 

• Develop procedures for fieldwork, identification, evaluation, and determination of potential 

effects to cultural resources in consultation with SHPO and Native American tribes. Onsite 

monitoring is often incorporated in the fieldwork when sites are known or suspected of 

 

6

 These factors are based on those presented in: Caltrans, “San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge East Span Seismic Safety Project, 

Consideration of Proposed Mitigation Measures,” September 1999. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.12 Cultural Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.12-27

containing Native American human remains. The procedures need to comply with federal and 

state statutes concerning burials. 

Avoidance is preferred, but if adjustments to the alignment alternative plan or profile are not feasible, 

data recovery may be provided. When impacts will destroy or affect the data potential of a property 

(NRHP Criterion D/CRHR Criterion 4), data recovery may consist of archaeological excavation of an 

adequate sample of site contents so that the research questions applicable to the site can be 

addressed. Recovery of important information from the site mitigates the information loss that will 

result from site destruction. If only part of a site is impacted by the project, data recovery will only 

be necessary for that portion of the site. Data recovery will not be required if the agency determines 

prior testing and studies have adequately recovered the scientifically consequential information from 

the resources (CEQA Guidelines, 14 C.C.R. § 15126.4[b]). 

When other NRHP or CRHR criteria are relevant (e.g., Criterion A/1; Criterion B/2; Criterion C/3) or 

when a traditional cultural property is involved, it is often necessary to consider more diverse 

mitigation measures. 

B. HISTORIC PROPERTIES/RESOURCES 

Measures to avoid adverse effects will include steps taken in both the design and construction phases 

of the project. Avoidance has occurred and will occur during the design phase by not including 

components that could possibly effect or impact historic properties/resources. Avoidance will also 

occur by conducting construction activities in a manner to actively evade historic 

properties/resources. 

The following are potential mitigation measures for historic properties/resources. 

Stabilization/Monitoring during Construction. The lead agency will prepare a treatment plan that will 

present a detailed methodology for the protection of historic properties/resources, such as buildings, 

structures, objects, and sites, and cultural landscape elements that are in close proximity to 

construction activities. This treatment plan will describe methods for the preservation, stabilization, 

shoring/underpinning, and monitoring of buildings, structures, and objects. The treatment plan will 

also include provisions that high vibration construction techniques would be avoided in sensitive 

areas. Underpinning and/or other stabilization methods will be used at buildings located near project 

construction areas that may be susceptible to damage or inadvertent destruction. 

Measures to Lessen Adverse Effects. Measures to minimize project impacts to historic 

properties/resources will occur in pre-construction, construction, and post-construction phases. Many 

of these mitigation measures will require careful agency review and may require stipulations in the 

contracts of the construction contractors to ensure appropriate preservation of cultural resources. 

Recordation. The lead agency will ensure that cultural resources adversely affected by the project 

will be recorded and documented to the standards of the Historic American Building Survey (HABS) 

or Historic American Engineering Record (HAER). This will require coordination with the NPS 

HABS/HAER program to determine the appropriate level of recordation. This coordination will also 

address the adequacy of recordation previously conducted for historic properties/resources that may 

be adversely affected. 

Design Guidelines. The lead agency will ensure that design guidelines are developed to ensure 

sympathetic, compatible, and appropriate designs for new construction. Aesthetic details can be 

considered mitigation, but there may be a limit to the amount of change possible in the design once 

important engineering and environmental considerations have been taken into account. It is most 

likely that the design guidelines mitigation will apply to the visual appearance of the project rather 

than specifics of alignment alternative, overall depth/width, or placement of supports. Design 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.12 Cultural Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.12-28

guidelines will be informed by the documentation prepared under HABS/HAER standards. It will be 

necessary for an architectural historian or a historical architect to advise the structural designers on 

appropriate architectural treatments that serve as mitigation. SHPO and other agencies will review 

draft design guidelines and provide comment on the guidelines as well as on proposed design 

changes. 

Interpretive/Educational Materials and Popular Report. The lead agency will prepare interpretive 

and/or educational materials and programs regarding the affected historic properties/resources. The 

focus of this mitigation will be the historic themes related to these resources. Such materials and/or 

programs may include a popular report, documentary videos, booklets, interpretive signage, and 

additional interpretive information made available to state and local agencies. These materials may 

also include salvage items, historic drawings, interpretive drawings, current and historic photographs, 

models, and oral histories. Assistance will also be provided for archiving or digitizing the 

documentation of cultural resources affected, as well as for the dissemination of the material to 

appropriate repositories. 

Relocation. Historic properties/resources that will be otherwise demolished because of the project 

may be relocated and rehabilitated. In consultation with the NPS, the lead agency will ensure that 

these buildings or structures are recorded to HABS standards prior to their removal. The lead 

agency/project proponent will be responsible for preparing a removal plan, including site plans for 

the new locations, and placing the resource on new foundations according to conditions consistent 

with those that existed prior to the move. 

Monitoring (Architectural/Cultural Landscape). The project construction documents and new 

construction will be monitored to ensure they conform to the design guidelines and any other 

treatment procedures agreed to by the consulting parties. A professional architectural historian and 

a professional historical landscape architect who meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional 

Qualifications Standards (48 FR 44738-9) will monitor construction to identify conditions that conflict 

with the mitigation measures. The lead agency will take steps to correct these conflicts. 

Minor Repairs and Reconstruction. The lead agency will ensure that inadvertent damage to historic 

properties/resources is repaired in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for 

Treatment of Historic Properties. 

Salvage. The lead agency will ensure that selected decorative or architectural elements of the 

adversely affected historic properties/resources are reviewed for feasibility of salvage in order to 

mitigate their loss or destruction. Where possible, these elements will be retained and incorporated 

into the new construction. Where re-use is not possible, selected salvaged elements will be made 

available for use in interpretive displays either near the affected resources or at another appropriate 

venue, such as a museum. 

C. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

Mitigation measures for paleontological resources would be developed and implemented at the 

project level. The following measures may be included. 

• Educate workers. 

• Recover fossils identified during the field reconnaissance. 

• Monitor construction. 

• Develop protocols for handling fossils discovered during construction, likely including temporary 

diversion of construction equipment so that the fossils could be recovered; identified; and 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.12 Cultural Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.12-29

prepared for dating, interpreting, and preserving at an established, permanent, accredited 

research facility. 

The above mitigation strategies, including implementation of a PA addressing historic resources and 

continued consultation and coordination with tribal representatives, are expected to substantially 

lessen or avoid impacts to cultural and historic resources in most circumstances. At the project-level 

of review, it is expected that for proposed HST Alignment Alternatives that result in impacts to 

cultural and historic resources, most of the impacts will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level, 

but it is possible that for some alignment alternatives, impacts will be significant. Sufficient 

information is not available at the program level to conclude with certainty that the above mitigation 

strategies will reduce impacts to affected resources to a less-than-significant effect in all 

circumstances. Therefore, potential impacts to cultural and historic resources are considered 

significant at the program level even with the application of mitigation strategies. Additional 

environmental assessment will allow more precise evaluation in project-level environmental analyses. 

3.12.7 Subsequent Analysis 

The following paragraphs describe the procedures that would be necessary at the project-level stage of 

environmental review to determine appropriate and feasible mitigation measures in consultation with the 

SHPO, if a decision is ultimately made to go forward with the proposed HST system. These procedures 

would satisfy the NHPA and CEQA requirements. 

As allowed under 36 CFR § 800.4(b)(2), a phased approach to identification of historic properties can be 

used when the proposed undertaking involves corridors. As indicated by the results of this study, FRA 

and the Authority have determined that historic properties likely exist along various corridor alignment 

alternatives through background research, consultation, and abbreviated field reconnaissance. Once 

alignment alternatives have been refined at the project level, full identification efforts may proceed. 

Under NHPA Section 106 and implementing regulations (36 CFR § 800), the procedures would include 

identifying resources with the potential to be affected, evaluating their significance under NRHP and 

CEQA, identifying any substantial adverse effects, and then evaluating potential mitigation. 

In the interest of identifying archaeological sites within the project-level APE, a field survey should be 

completed which would identify those sites evident on the surface, geomorphological maps and studies 

should be reviewed to assess the potential for the project-level APE to contain significant buried sites, 

and historic maps and an historic overview or context should be developed in the interest of identifying 

potential historical archaeology sites within the project-level APE. 

Additional efforts must also be made to consult with appropriate tribes and individuals knowledgeable 

about the nature and locations of potential traditional cultural properties. 

Identifying potentially affected archaeological and historical properties/resources would require 

identification and evaluation within a more specifically defined project-level APE that would include the 

area where direct and indirect impacts from construction could occur (including locations of easements 

and construction-related facilities, such as equipment staging areas, borrow and disposal areas, access 

roads, and utilities) and the areas where the settings of any eligible historic buildings and structures, or 

the buildings and structures themselves, could be materially or significantly altered. 

All identified resources would then be evaluated using NRHP and CRHR eligibility criteria. Evaluating 

archaeological sites may require preparing test plans for archaeological resources that contain regionally 

relevant research questions. The Authority and the FRA would consult with the SHPO on any test plans 

and determinations of eligibility for evaluated resources. The impacts of a proposed specific project on 

resources determined eligible would be analyzed. An impact analysis report may then be reviewed with 

the SHPO. Mitigation measures needed to address impacts on specific resources could then be 

developed and incorporated in MOAs between the SHPO, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.12 Cultural Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.12-30

the FRA, and the Authority during the preparation of site-specific environmental evaluation. The 

mitigation measures in the MOAs would then be incorporated into site-specific environmental 

documentation and project approvals. 

A paleontological resource assessment program would also be completed as part of the subsequent 

analysis for a project-level EIR/EIS. The assessment program would include field reconnaissance to 

identify exposed paleontological resources and more precisely determine potential paleontologic 

sensitivity for the project. A paleontological resources treatment plan would be prepared by a qualified 

paleontologist. The plan would be included in project approval and would address the treatment of 

paleontological resources discovered prior to and during construction. 

Further consultation would also occur at the project level with the NAHC as necessary and with Native 

American groups when traditional territories may be close to project-level APEs for the project. 

Additionally, more specific information related to traditional cultural sites of concern would be obtained as 

necessary. 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.13-1

3.13 Geology and Soils 

Active seismicity represents a key constraint on design and construction for the HST Alignment 

Alternatives1

. Portions of HST Alignment Alternatives would require special design, including additional 

structural ductility and redundancy to withstand severe ground shaking, potential liquefaction, and other 

types of seismically induced ground failure. Conceptual HST Alignment Alternatives have been designed 

to cross major faults at grade wherever possible. However, design constraints along several of the 

alignment alternatives have resulted in crossing faults on aerial structures, and, in one case, in tunnel. In 

any case, active fault crossings would require special designs to minimize potential damage to the rail 

lines and other infrastructure as a result of surface fault rupture and surface disruption associated with 

fault creep. 

Construction of mountain crossings for the HST Alignment Alternatives would be constrained by existing 

unstable slopes and areas of difficult excavation. The tunnels proposed in the alternative alignments 

would pose additional design and construction issues because of difficult excavation conditions. 

Potential geologic impacts that are categorized as high or significant should not be regarded as 

precluding construction of an alignment alternative or segment, or as necessarily indicating that these 

would be potentially adverse impacts. Rather, they identify aspects of project design where additional 

study would be needed and where engineering and design effort would be required to avoid or mitigate 

the impacts. 

3.13.1 Regulatory Requirements and Methods of Evaluation 

A. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 

A number of state regulations apply to geologic hazards and engineering geologic practice. The 

following paragraphs summarize key regulatory provisions; more detailed discussion is deferred to 

project-level environmental documentation because these regulations, if applicable, relate to sitespecific conditions and thus would be applied as appropriate at the project level rather than the 

program level. 

Principal state guidance relating to geologic hazards is contained in the Alquist-Priolo Act (P.R.C. 

§ 2621 et seq.) and the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of 1990 (P.R.C. § 2690–2699.6). The AlquistPriolo Act prohibits the location of most types of structures for human occupancy across the active 

traces of faults in earthquake fault zones shown on maps prepared by the state geologist and 

regulates construction in the corridors along active faults (earthquake fault zones). The Seismic 

Hazards Mapping Act of 1990 focuses on hazards related to strong ground shaking, liquefaction, and 

seismically induced landslides. Under its provisions, the state is charged with identifying and 

mapping areas at risk of strong ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, and other corollary hazards. 

The maps are to be used by cities and counties in preparing their general plans and adopting land 

use policies to reduce and mitigate potential hazards to public health and safety. 

Site-specific geotechnical investigations may be prepared to provide a geologic basis for the 

development of appropriate construction design for proposed projects, including mitigation/ 

remediation of geologic hazards where this is possible. Geotechnical investigations typically assess 

the bedrock and Quaternary geology, including soils; the previous history of excavation and fill 

placement on and in the vicinity of the site for a proposed project; and geologic structure, where 

relevant. They may also address the requirements of the Alquist-Priolo Act and the Seismic Hazards 

Mapping Act. 

 

1

 See Section 3.0, Introduction, for an explanation of how this section fits together with the HST Network Alternatives presented in 

Chapter 7, as well as for an overview of the information presented in the other chapters. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.13 Geology and Soils 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.13-2

Pursuant to the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (P.R.C. § 2710 et seq.), the State Mining and 

Geology Board identifies in adopted regulations areas of regional significance that are known to 

contain mineral deposits judged to be important in meeting the future needs of the area. (See P.R.C. 

§ 2726 and 2790; Title 14 C.C.R. 3550, et seq.) The State Mining and Geology Board also adopts 

state policy for the reclamation of mined lands and certifies local ordinances for the approval of 

reclamation plans as being consistent with state policies (P.R.C. § 2755–2764, 2774 et seq.). 

B. METHOD OF EVALUATION OF IMPACTS 

To evaluate potential impacts related to geology and soils, each alignment alternative and each 

segment have been ranked for potential seismic hazards (ground shaking and ground failure 

potential), surface rupture hazard (number of active and potentially active fault crossings), slope 

instability, areas of difficult excavation, presence of oil/gas/geothermal fields (presence of the 

resource and/or production facilities), and presence of economic mineral resources. The analysis was 

performed generally on the basis of data available in geographic information systems GIS format, as 

opposed to detailed site investigations. The geologic data provided in this section are intended for 

planning purposes and are not intended to be definitive for specific sites. Alignments are evaluated 

as having high, medium, or low potential for geologic impacts based on the number of geologic 

constraints identified. Stations and other facilities are evaluated as having high or low potential for 

geologic impacts, based on the presence or absence of geologic constraints identified. These 

rankings made it possible to provide a rough comparison of the potential geologic constraints 

affecting the alternative alignments and station locations. 

The following paragraphs describe the ranking process. Table 3.13-1 summarizes the ranking criteria 

for potential geologic and soils impacts. 

Table 3.13-1 

Ranking System for Comparing Impacts Related to Geology/Soils/Seismicity 

Impact 

Ranking 

Seismic 

Hazards 

(% of 

Length) 

Active and 

Potentially 

Active Fault 

Crossings 

(Number of 

Crossings) 

Slope 

Instability 

(% of 

Length) 

Difficult 

Excavation 

(% of 

Length) 

Oil and Gas 

Fields 

(% of 

Length) 

Mineral 

Resource 

Sites 

(Present or 

Not Present) 

Alignments 

High >50 2+ >10 >25 >20 >20 

Medium 10–50 1 5–10 10–25 10–20 10–20 

Low <10 0 <5 <10 <10 <10 

Stations/Facilities 

High Present Present Present Present Present Present 

Low Not present Not present Not present Not present Not present Not present 

Seismic Hazards

Seismic hazards that potentially could constrain the design of proposed facilities were evaluated on 

the basis of potential for strong ground motion and potential for liquefaction. Areas potentially 

subject to strong ground motion are defined for this program-level study as areas where there is a 

10% probability in 50 years that the peak horizontal ground accelerations in an earthquake will 

exceed 0.50 g (i.e., areas where peak horizontal ground acceleration may exceed 50% of the 

acceleration because of gravity) as mapped by the California Geological Survey (formerly the 

California Division of Mines and Geology) (State of California 1999). This acceleration is used to 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.13 Geology and Soils 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.13-3

calculate the horizontal force a structure may be subjected to during an earthquake. For this 

analysis, liquefaction is conservatively assumed to be possible in all areas where peak ground 

accelerations could exceed 0.30g, except for areas mapped as underlain by bedrock. Where 

groundwater levels are not known from existing literature, they are conservatively assumed to be 

high, contributing to increased potential for liquefaction. 

The ranking system for impacts related to seismic hazards used the percentage of each potential 

alignment within strong ground motion zones and/or potentially liquefiable zones. Station sites are 

compared by determining whether any portion of the proposed station site would be within a strong 

ground motion zone or potentially liquefiable zone. 

• Alignments: High, medium, or low, based on percentage of alignment length in strong ground 

motion zones plus the percentage of length in potentially liquefiable zones. 

• Stations: High if any part of the site would be within a strong ground motion zone or potentially 

liquefiable zone; otherwise, low. 

Potential for Surface Rupture (Active and Potentially Active Fault Crossings)

Surface rupture hazard is evaluated based on whether any portion of a project alignment or facility 

would be located within 200 ft (62 m) of the mapped trace of any fault with known or inferred 

movement during Quaternary time (the past 1.6 million years), i.e., both active and potentially active 

faults. The State of California defines active faults as those that show evidence for movement in the 

last 11,000 years. Because of the extreme disruption of transit facilities that can result from surface 

fault rupture, this analysis deliberately adopted a conservative criterion for the assessment of surface 

rupture hazard and included potentially active faults, those with known or inferred movement over 

Quaternary time.

The ranking system for impacts related to surface rupture hazard is based on the number of active 

and potentially active fault crossings identified. 

• Alignments: High, medium, or low, based on number of active and potentially active 

(Quaternary) fault crossings. Because the probability of fault rupture on potentially active faults 

is substantially lower than the probability of rupture of active faults, the impact is ranked as high 

or significant only when active faults are present. Crossing an active fault in tunnel is also 

ranked as High. If an alignment crosses two or more potentially active faults, but no active 

faults, the impact is ranked as medium. 

• Stations: High if any part of the site is within 200 ft (60 m) of an active or potentially active 

(Quaternary) fault; otherwise, low. 

Slope Instability

Slope stability is evaluated based on the slope gradient and geologic formations or units present 

along each alignment and at each facility site, as shown in statewide mapping compiled by Jennings 

(1977, 1991). Each mapped geologic units is assigned a rating for inferred slope stability, based 

primarily on lithology (physical characteristics of the rock formation) and age. This approach allows 

the identification of areas at risk for slope instability. A conservative 200-ft (60-m) buffer is included 

around each identified area of instability. 

The ranking system for impacts related to slope instability is based on the percentage of each 

alignment in potentially unstable zones. Station sites are compared by determining whether any 

portion of the site is in an area of potential slope instability. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.13 Geology and Soils 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.13-4

• Alignments: High, medium, or low, based on percentage of alignment length in a potentially 

unstable zone. 

• Stations: High if any part of the site is in a potentially unstable zone; otherwise, low. 

Difficult Excavation

Areas of potentially difficult excavation are identified based on bedrock geologic characteristics in 

combination with the presence of faults of any age, based on statewide mapping compiled by 

Jennings (1977, 1991) and information from selected 1:250,000-scale geologic map sheets for the 

study regions published by the California Geological Survey. Each fault crossing is conservatively 

assumed to be approximately 600 ft (185 m) wide. 

The ranking system for impacts related to difficulty of excavation is based on the percentage of each 

alignment where excavation would be required in identified areas of difficult excavation. Station sites 

are compared by determining whether any portion of the site is in an identified area of difficult 

excavation. 

• Alignments: High, medium, or low, based on percentage of surface segments in hard rock plus 

percentage of tunnel segments in fault zones. 

• Stations: High if any part of the site is in a hard rock zone or fault zone; otherwise, low. 

Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Fields

Areas where the presence of oil, gas, or geothermal resources could constrain project construction or 

operation are identified on the basis of published resource maps produced by the California 

Department of Conservation’s Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (California Department 

of Conservation 2001a, 2001b). 

The ranking system for impacts related to oil, gas, and geothermal fields is based on the percentage 

of each proposed alignment in identified oil and gas or geothermal field areas. Station sites are 

compared by determining whether any portion of the proposed site is in a mapped oil, gas, or 

geothermal field area. 

• Alignment: High, medium, or low, based on percentage of alignment length in mapped oil, gas, 

or geothermal fields. 

• Stations: High if any part of the site is in a mapped oil, gas, or geothermal field; otherwise, low. 

Mineral Resources

Areas where the project could affect mineral resource extraction (primarily sand and gravel deposits) 

are identified on the basis of reports and published maps by the U.S. Geological Survey, and 

California Geological Survey. 

The ranking system for mineral resources impacts is based on the number of mineral resources sites 

intersected by each alignment. Station sites are compared by determining whether any portion of 

the site is in a mineral resource area. The potential value of mineral resources varies with time with 

demand for the resource. Thus, evaluation of specific sites for relative importance will not be 

considered for this program-level study. 

• Alignments: High, medium, or low, based on number of mapped resources within 200 ft (60 m) 

of a mineral resource area. 

• Stations: High if any part of the site is within 200 ft (60 m) of a mineral resource area; 

otherwise, low. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.13 Geology and Soils 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.13-5

C. CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING CEQA SIGNIFICANCE 

A wide range of potential impacts is considered in the analysis of geology and soils, including seismic 

hazards, surface rupture hazards, slope instability, safety risks from difficulty in excavation, hazards 

related to oil and gas fields, and loss of accessibility to mineral resources. Each of these potential 

geologic and soils impacts is discussed in the following sections. Potential impacts associated with 

corrosive and expansive soils are difficult to quantify on a regional basis and consequently have not 

been ranked. However, the following sections briefly discuss the impacts and mitigation of corrosive 

and expansive soils. 

Geologic conditions are evaluated with respect to the impacts the project may have on the local 

geology, as well as the impact that specific geologic hazards may have on the HST Alignment 

Alternatives. Impacts of the project related to the geologic environment are characterized on the 

basis of CEQA statutes and guidelines. Under CEQA guidelines (Appendix G), a project is considered 

significant if it: 

• Exposes people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, 

injury, or death involving: 

− Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo 

Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other 

substantial evidence of a known fault. Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special 

Publication 42. 

− Strong seismic ground shaking. 

− Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction and lateral spreading. 

− iv) Landslides. 

• Results in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. 

• Is located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of 

the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, subsidence, or collapse. 

• Is located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), 

creating substantial risks to life or property. 

• Results in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region 

and the residents of the state. 

• Results in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated 

on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan. 

3.13.2 Affected Environment 

A. STUDY AREA DEFINED 

The study area for geology and soils is defined as the corridor extending 200 ft (60 m) on each side 

of the alignment centerlines, and a 200-ft (60-m) radius around each station site. This distance 

incorporates all cross sections except deep cuts and fills. As described in Method of Evaluation of 

Impacts above, alternatives were compared based on the number of sites with potential geologic or 

soils impacts per alternative, which depends on the length and location of the alignment; broadening 

the study area to include the entire width of deep cut-and-fill sections would not change the results 

of the comparison. 

B. GENERAL DISCUSSION OF GEOLOGY AND SOILS 

The following sections describe key project constraints related to geology and soils. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.13 Geology and Soils 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.13-6

Seismic Hazards

Seismic hazards are generally classified in two categories: primary seismic hazards (surface fault 

rupture and ground shaking) and secondary seismic hazards (liquefaction and other types of 

seismically induced ground failure, including seismically induced landslides). 

Primary: Surface fault rupture, or ground rupture, occurs when an active fault ruptures at depth to 

produce an earthquake, and the rupture propagates to the ground surface. Surface rupture can also 

occur as a result of slow, gradual motion referred to as fault creep. An area’s potential for ground 

rupture is assessed based on the displacement history of the area’s faults. Two categories of faults 

have been defined by the State of California in Special Publication 42 (Hart and Bryant 1997). Active 

faults are those that are known or inferred to have experienced movement in the past 11,000 years 

and are considered to have a high potential for future ground rupture. Potentially active2 faults are 

those that are not known to have experienced movement in the past 11,000 years but have moved 

during Quaternary time (the past 1.6 million years). These faults may also pose a surface rupture 

hazard, but the hazard is more difficult to evaluate. For the purpose of this study, both active and 

potentially active faults were evaluated. 

Ground shaking occurs in response to the release of energy during an earthquake. The energy 

released travels through subsurface rock, sediment, and soil materials as seismic waves, which result 

in motion experienced at the ground surface. 

Secondary: Liquefaction and other types of seismically induced ground failure reflect loss of strength 

and/or cohesion when earth materials are subjected to strong seismic ground shaking. Earthquakes 

also can trigger landslides where slopes are prone to failure because of geologic conditions or 

because of modifications during construction. 

Surface fault rupture, ground shaking, and seismically induced ground failure all can result in 

substantial damage to structures. Thorough assessment of the existing hazard combined with 

appropriate design and construction can reduce the potential for damage substantially. 

Unstable Slopes

Slopes are considered unstable (prone to failure or landslides) when soil or rock strength is 

insufficient to resist gravitational forces or other loads. Slope instability can occur naturally as a 

result of a combination of factors such as bedrock bedding and/or fracture patterns, soil or rock 

strength, and groundwater levels, coupled with steep slopes. Slope failure also can be triggered by 

seismic activity or by improperly designed construction.

If slope instability is not adequately characterized and mitigated during design and construction, it 

can cause severe damage to surface and near-surface improvements as well as risks to public safety. 

However, slope instability generally can be addressed with planning and design. 

Areas of Difficult Excavation

Subsurface geologic conditions will largely determine the ease or difficulty of excavation, which will in 

turn indicate the appropriate excavation technique for use in various areas. For instance, hard 

unfractured bedrock may be difficult to excavate using bulldozers and other earthmoving equipment, 

or too resistant to tunneling using a tunnel boring machine; in these areas, blasting may be required. 

On the other hand, fractured rock that contains groundwater also can be difficult to excavate using 

tunneling methods. Faulted material can pose an additional challenge by contributing to instability at 

the tunnel face. 

 

2

 The term potentially active is under review for alternative nomenclature by California Geological Survey. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.13 Geology and Soils 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.13-7

Geologic Resources

Geologic resources in California include oil and gas fields, geothermal fields, and a wide range of 

mineral resources. The principal constraint associated with oil, gas, geothermal, and mineral 

resources is the need for planning to ensure that construction of new facilities would not conflict with 

the removal of economically important resources and would avoid known problem areas to the extent 

feasible. In addition, the presence of even small (noneconomic) quantities of oil or gas in the 

subsurface can pose toxic or explosive hazards during construction, requiring specific precautions, 

and may also necessitate special designs and monitoring during the operation of subsurface 

structures such as tunnels. Similarly, certain mineral resources, such as serpentine (the source of 

natural asbestos) can result in hazardous working conditions if not properly managed. 

Expansive and Corrosive Soil

Expansive soils shrink and swell as they lose and gain moisture during the local weather cycle. The 

resulting volumetric changes can heave and crack lightly loaded foundations and slabs. When 

expansive soils are identified during geotechnical design reports, their impact can be mitigated using 

standard geotechnical design practices, i.e., removal and replacement with engineered fill, the use of 

soil improvement techniques such as lime treatment, or by obtaining foundation support below the 

zone of seasonal moisture variation. Corrosive soils may adversely affect the long-term structural 

stability of steel and concrete. The impact of corrosive soils can be mitigated by using corrosionresistant materials during construction. 

C. GEOLOGY AND SOILS IN THE BAY AREA TO CENTRAL VALLEY REGION 

The following paragraphs provide an overview of key geologic and geomorphologic features in the 

Bay Area to Central Valley Region, based on Norris and Webb’s (1990) overview of California’s 

geomorphic provinces and information from geologic and topographic maps published by the U.S. 

Geological Survey. The geology along the HST alignments is depicted on Figure 13.3-1. 

The Bay Area to Central Valley Region comprises central California from the San Francisco Bay Area 

(San Francisco and Oakland) south to the Santa Clara Valley and east across the East Bay Hills, 

Livermore Valley, and Diablo Range to the Central Valley. The Bay Area to Central Valley Region 

spans two of California’s geomorphic provinces: the Coast Ranges province and the Great Valley 

province. 

The Coast Ranges province consists of generally northwest-trending ridges and valleys that form a 

rugged barrier between the Pacific Coast and inland California. The valley occupied by San Francisco 

Bay is bordered by the Diablo Range and East Bay Hills on the east and the Santa Cruz Mountains on 

the west. The Livermore Valley is located between the East Bay Hills and the Diablo Range. Other 

important valleys within the Coast Ranges province are the Salinas, Napa, and Sonoma Valleys. 

The geology of the Diablo Range generally consists of a dense core of partially to completely 

metamorphosed rocks of the Franciscan Assemblage blanketed by sedimentary rocks of the Great 

Valley sequence with younger Tertiary Formations along the flanks of the range. The East Bay Hills 

typically comprise sedimentary rocks of the Great Valley Sequence and younger Tertiary Formations, 

with rocks of the Franciscan Assemblage along the western flank. In the intervening valleys, the 

bedrock is blanketed by Quaternary age alluvial deposits. 

The Franciscan Assemblage typically consists of a mélange of coherent blocks (ranging in size from a 

few inches to several miles) of sandstone, siltstone, chert, and greenstone in a matrix of sheared 

shale and serpentinite. Slopes in the sheared shale and serpentinite often are unstable. The Great 

Valley Sequence consists of a series of non-metamorphosed sedimentary rocks ranging in age from 

Cretaceous to early Tertiary. They typically comprise marine sandstone and shale with occasional 

beds of conglomerate. The Tertiary Formations generally comprise poorly to moderately cemented 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.13 Geology and Soils 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.13-8

claystone, shale, sandstone, and conglomerate. Slopes in the Tertiary units can be unstable, even at 

low angles, when the degree of compaction and cementation is low. 

Along the margins of San Francisco Bay, the Quaternary sediments consist of intertidal deposits or 

organic rich bay mud, older alluvium, and alluvial fan deposits, locally blanketed by artificial fill. In 

the Livermore and Santa Clara Valleys, the Quaternary sediments typically comprise sand, gravel and 

clay. Locally the gravel in the Livermore Valley is mined as aggregate. 

The Great Valley province comprises a large, elongated, north-trending valley situated between the 

Coast Ranges on the west and the Sierra Nevada on the east. Much of the Great Valley is at 

elevations near sea level (Norris and Webb 1990). The valley is a structurally controlled basin, with 

faults occurring at the boundaries between the valley and adjacent mountain ranges. Quaternary 

alluvium was deposited in the basin as it subsided. The Quaternary alluvium comprises fluvial, 

alluvial, and terrace deposits consisting of clay, silt, sand, gravel, and cobbles. The Quaternary 

sediments are generally finer-grained near the center of the valley and coarser-grained along the 

flanks of the valley. Individual geologic units include the Modesto, Riverbank, Dos Palos, Los Banos, 

San Luis Ranch, and Patterson Formations. 

3.13.3 Environmental Consequences 

A. NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE 

Existing conditions are as of 2006. The No Project Alternative includes existing transportation 

infrastructure plus all planned, approved, and funded projects that can reasonably be expected to be 

in operation by 2030. This analysis assumed that existing major infrastructure (bridges, for example) 

was designed, has been retrofitted, or is scheduled to be retrofitted to meet current design standards 

for seismic safety and other geologic constraints, and that future projects included in the No Project 

Alternative would incorporate similar safeguards as part of the development, design, and construction 

process. However, it is not possible to eliminate or mitigate all geologic hazards through design and 

construction. Some types of geologic hazards (seismic hazards in particular) are unpredictable. 

While it is difficult to evaluate the change in hazards (potential for geologic impacts) between existing 

conditions and No Project conditions, it can be assumed that some improvements in technology and 

materials as well as more stringent design codes will be implemented in the next 20 years to address 

seismic design of new structures. Thus the No Project Alternative would be somewhat improved 

from the existing conditions, but existing geologic risks were assumed to be representative of 

geologic risks under the No Project Alternative. 

B. HIGH-SPEED TRAIN ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES 

Overall, the HST Alignment Alternatives would have the following impacts before mitigation: 

(1) ground shaking and ground failure, (2) ground rupture, (3) slope instability, (4) difficulty in 

excavation, and (5) hazards related to oil and gas fields. 

Ground Shaking and Failure. Seismic hazards evaluated include ground shaking and ground 

failure. The HST Alignment Alternatives and facilities could cause risks to workers and public safety 

attributable to the collapse or toppling of facilities, either during construction or after completion, as 

a result of strong earthquakes. The HST Alignment Alternatives and facilities also could create risks 

to public safety from automobile accidents or the interruption of automobile circulation, if strong 

earthquakes cause a derailment. HST facilities could sustain damage from secondary hazards such 

as settlement over soft or filled ground. 

Ground Rupture. The HST Alignment Alternatives and facilities could cause risks to workers and 

public safety as a result of ground rupture along active faults, either during construction or after 

completion. The HST Alignment Alternatives and facilities also could create secondary public safety 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Geology 

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.13 Geology and Soils 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.13-9

risks caused by damage to highways or interruption of these transportation services, in the event of 

train derailment caused by ground rupture along active faults. 

Slope Instability. The HST Alignment Alternatives and facilities could cause risks to workers and 

public safety attributable to the failure of natural or construction cut slopes or retention structures. 

Difficulty in Excavation. The HST Alignment Alternatives and facilities could cross areas with 

hard, unfractured bedrock that would be difficult to excavate using methods other than blasting, 

which may pose a safety risk. Faulted materials that may be present can result in instability in the 

face of a tunnel area, another potential hazard. 

Hazards Related to Oil and Gas Fields. The HST could be adversely affected by the potential for 

migration of potentially explosive and/or toxic gases into subsurface facilities, such as tunnels or 

underground stations. 

This analysis focused on comparing the difference in impacts anticipated with the various HST 

Alignment Alternatives compared to 2030 No Project conditions. 

Table 3.13-2 shows geologic impact ratings for the HST Alignment Alternatives (an impact is a 

constraint to development) (see Table 3.13-A-1 in Appendix 3.13-A for more detail). They include: 

• Seismic hazards and the potential for strong seismic ground shaking and liquefaction. 

• Active and potentially active fault crossings. 

• Unstable slopes. 

• Difficult excavation of tunnels and deep cuts. 

• Impacts on oil and gas fields. 

• Impacts on mineral resources. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 3.13-2. Geology and Soils Summary Data Table for 

Alignment Alternatives and Station Location Option Comparisons 

Corridor 

Possible 

Alignments Alignment Alternative Seismic Hazards Active and Potentially Active Fault Crossings Slope Instability Difficult Excavation Oil and G

Fields 

San Francisco to San Jose: Caltrain 

1 of 1 San Francisco 

to Dumbarton H M L L L 

1 of 1 Dumbarton to 

San Jose H M L L L 

Station Location OptionsTransbay Transit Center H L L L L 4th and King (Caltrain) H L L L L Millbrae/SFO H L L L L Redwood City (Caltrain) H L L L L Palo Alto (Caltrain) H L L L L Oakland to San Jose: Niles/I-880 

1 of 2 West Oakland 

to Niles Junction 

H M L L L 

12th

Street/City Center to Niles Junction 

H M L L L 

1 of 2 Niles Junction 

to San Jose via Trimble 

H H L L L 

Niles Junction to San Jose via I-880 

H H L L L 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Corridor 

Possible 

Alignments Alignment Alternative Seismic Hazards Active and Potentially Active Fault Crossings Slope Instability Difficult Excavation Oil and G

Fields 

Station Location OptionsWest Oakland/7th Street H L L L L 12th Street/City Center H L L L L Coliseum/Airport H L L L L Union City (BART) H L L L L Fremont (Warm Springs) H L L L L 

San Jose to Central Valley: Pacheco Pass 

1 of 1 Pacheco H H M M L 1 of 3 Henry Miller 

(UPRR Connection) 

M M L L L 

Henry Miller (BNSF Connection)

M M L L L 

GEA North M M L L L 

Station Location OptionsSan Jose (Diridon) H L L L L Morgan Hill (Caltrain) H L L L L Gilroy (Caltrain) H L L L L East Bay to Central Valley: Altamont Pass

1 of 4 I-680/ 

580/UPRR H H L M L I-580/ UPRR H H L M L Patterson Pass/UPRR H H M H L UPRR H H L M L 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Corridor 

Possible 

Alignments Alignment Alternative Seismic Hazards Active and Potentially Active Fault Crossings Slope Instability Difficult Excavation Oil and G

Fields 

1 of 4 Tracy 

Downtown (BNSF Connection) 

M M L L L 

Tracy ACE Station (BNSF Connection) 

M H L L L 

Tracy ACE Station (UPRR Connection) 

M H L L L 

Tracy Downtown (UPRR Connection) 

M M L L L 

2 of 2 East Bay 

Connections WPRR to UPRR 

H H L L L 

East Bay Connections UP to UPRR 

H M L L L 

Station Location OptionsPleasanton (I-680/Bernal Rd) H L L L L Pleasanton (BART) H L L L L Livermore (Downtown) H L L L L Livermore (I-580) H L L L L Livermore (Greenville Road/UPRR) H L L L L Livermore (Greenville Road/I-580) H L L L L Tracy (Downtown) H L L L L Tracy (ACE) H L L L L 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Corridor 

Possible 

Alignments Alignment Alternative Seismic Hazards Active and Potentially Active Fault Crossings Slope Instability Difficult Excavation Oil and G

Fields 

San Francisco Bay Crossings 

1 of 2 Trans Bay 

Crossing—Transbay Transit Center 

H L L L L 

Trans Bay Crossing—4th& King 

H L L L L 

1 of 6 

Dumbarton (High Bridge) H H L L L Dumbarton (Low Bridge) H H L L L Dumbarton (Tube) H H L L L Fremont Central Park (High Bridge) 

H H L L L 

Fremont Central Park (Low Bridge) 

H H L L L 

Fremont Central Park (Tube) 

H H L L L 

Station Location Options Union City (Shinn) H H L L L Central Valley 

1 of 6 

BNSF—UPRR L L L L L BNSF L L L L L UPRR N/S L L L L L BNSF Castle L L L L L UPRR—BNSF Castle L L L L L 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Corridor 

Possible 

Alignments Alignment Alternative Seismic Hazards Active and Potentially Active Fault Crossings Slope Instability Difficult Excavation Oil and G

Fields 

UPRR—BNSF L L L L L 

Station Location Options

Modesto (Downtown) L L L L L 

Briggsmore (Amtrak) L L L L L 

Merced (Downtown) L L L L L 

Castle AFB L L L L L 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.13 Geology and Soils 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.13-15

Table 3.13-3 shows the actual fault crossing by alignment alternative. 

Table 3.13-3. Fault Crossings by Alignment and Segment 

Corridor 

Possible Alignments 

Alignment Fault(s) Crossed 

Active of 

Potentially 

Active? 

Crossed above, at, or 

below Grade? 

San 

Francisco to 

San Jose: 

Caltrain 

1 of 1 San Francisco to 

Dumbarton 

San Bruno Fault Potentially Active At Grade 

1 of 1 Dumbarton to 

San Jose 

Buried Trace of 

Unnamed Fault 

Potentially Active At Grade 

Transbay Transit Center None 

4th and King (Caltrain) None 

Millbrae/SFO None 

Redwood City (Caltrain) None 

Palo Alto (Caltrain) None 

Oakland to 

San Jose: 

Niles/I-880 

1 of 2 West Oakland to 

Niles Junction 

Hayward Fault Active At Grade 

12th Street/City 

Center to Niles 

Junction 

Hayward Fault Active At Grade 

1 of 2 Niles Junction to 

San Jose via 

Trimble 

Hayward Fault 

Silver Creek Fault 

Active 

Potentially Active 

At Grade 

Above Grade 

Niles Junction to 

San Jose via I880 

Hayward Fault 

Silver Creek Fault 

Active 

Potentially Active 

At Grade 

Above Grade 

West Oakland/7th Street None 

12th Street/City Center None 

Coliseum/Airport None 

Union City (BART) None 

Fremont (Warm Springs) None 

San Jose to 

Central 

Valley: 

Pacheco Pass 

1 of 1 Pacheco Silver Creek Fault 

Calaveras Fault 

Potentially Active 

Active 

At Grade 

At Grade 

1 of 3 Henry Miller 

(UPRR 

Connection) 

Ortigalita Fault Active At Grade 

Henry Miller 

(BNSF 

Connection)

Ortigalita Fault Active At Grade 

GEA North Ortigalita Fault Active At Grade 

Embankment 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.13 Geology and Soils 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.13-16

Corridor 

Possible Alignments 

Alignment Fault(s) Crossed 

Active of 

Potentially 

Active? 

Crossed above, at, or 

below Grade? 

San Jose (Diridon) None 

Morgan Hill (Caltrain) None 

Gilroy (Caltrain) None 

East Bay to 

Central 

Valley: 

Altamont 

Pass

1 of 4 I-680/ 580/UPRR Calaveras Fault 

Pleasanton Fault 

Livermore Fault 

Greenville Fault 

Active 

Active 

Potentially Active 

Active 

Tunnel3

Above Grade 

Above Grade 

Above Grade 

I-580/ UPRR Calaveras Fault 

Livermore Fault 

Greenville Fault 

Active 

Potentially Active 

Active 

Tunnel3

At Grade 

Above Grade 

Patterson 

Pass/UPRR 

Calaveras Fault 

Livermore Fault 

Greenville Fault 

Corral Hallow Fault 

Active 

Potentially Active 

Active 

Potentially Active 

Tunnel3

At Grade 

Above Grade 

At Grade 

UPRR Calaveras Fault 

Livermore Fault 

Greenville Fault 

Active 

Potentially Active 

Active 

Tunnel3

At Grade 

Above Grade 

1 of 4 Tracy Downtown 

(BNSF 

Connection) 

Vernalis Fault Active At Grade 

Tracy ACE 

Station (BNSF 

Connection) 

Vernalis Fault 

San Joaquin Fault 

Active 

Potentially Active 

At Grade 

At Grade 

Tracy ACE 

Station (UPRR 

Connection) 

Vernalis Fault 

San Joaquin Fault 

Active 

Potentially Active 

At Grade 

At Grade 

Tracy Downtown 

(UPRR 

Connection) 

Vernalis Fault Active At Grade 

2 of 2 East Bay 

Connections 

(WPRR to UPRR) 

Hayward Fault 

Mission Fault 

Active 

Potentially Active 

At Grade 

At Grade 

East Bay 

Connections 

(UP to UPRR) 

Mission Fault Potentially Active At Grade 

Pleasanton (I-680/Bernal Rd) None 

Pleasanton (BART) None 

Livermore (Downtown) None 

Livermore (I-580) None 

 

3

 Following circulation of the Draft Program EIR/EIS, FRA and the Authority discovered that the location of the Calaveras Fault was 

incorrectly shown on Figure 2.D-60, Appendix 2D. The correct location of the fault line is 1,500 feet to the west. As a result, this 

table and Figure 2.D-60 have been corrected to show that the HSR alignment would cross this fault in tunnel. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.13 Geology and Soils 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.13-17

Corridor 

Possible Alignments 

Alignment Fault(s) Crossed 

Active of 

Potentially 

Active? 

Crossed above, at, or 

below Grade? 

Livermore (Greenville Road/UPRR) None 

Livermore (Greenville Road/I-580) None 

Tracy (Downtown) None 

Tracy (ACE) None 

San 

Francisco 

Bay 

Crossings 

1 of 2 Trans Bay 

Crossing – 

Transbay Transit 

Center 

None 

Trans Bay 

Crossing – 4th & 

King 

None 

1 of 6 

Dumbarton (High 

Bridge) 

Buried Trace of 

Unnamed Fault 

Silver Creek Fault 

Hayward Fault 

Mission Fault 

Potentially Active 

Potentially Active 

Active 

Potentially Active 

At Grade 

At Grade 

Above Grade 

At Grade 

Dumbarton 

(Low Bridge) 

Buried Trace of 

Unnamed Fault 

Silver Creek Fault 

Hayward Fault 

Mission Fault 

Potentially Active 

Potentially Active 

Active 

Potentially Active 

At Grade 

At Grade 

Above Grade 

At Grade 

Dumbarton 

(Tube) 

Buried Trace of 

Unnamed Fault 

Silver Creek Fault 

Hayward Fault 

Mission Fault 

Potentially Active 

Potentially Active 

Active 

Potentially Active 

At Grade 

At Grade 

Above Grade 

At Grade 

Fremont Central 

Park 

(High Bridge) 

Buried Trace of 

Unnamed Fault 

Silver Creek Fault 

Hayward Fault 

Mission Fault 

Potentially Active 

Potentially Active 

Active 

Potentially Active 

At Grade 

At Grade 

Above Grade 

At Grade 

Fremont Central 

Park 

(Low Bridge) 

Buried Trace of 

Unnamed Fault 

Silver Creek Fault 

Hayward Fault 

Mission Fault 

Potentially Active 

Potentially Active 

Active 

Potentially Active 

At Grade 

At Grade 

Above Grade 

At Grade 

Fremont Central 

Park 

(Tube) 

Buried Trace of 

Unnamed Fault 

Silver Creek Fault 

Hayward Fault 

Mission Fault 

Potentially Active 

Potentially Active 

Active 

Potentially Active 

At Grade 

At Grade 

Above Grade 

At Grade 

Union City (Shinn) Within AP Fault 

Hazard Zone for Active Above Grade 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.13 Geology and Soils 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.13-18

Corridor 

Possible Alignments 

Alignment Fault(s) Crossed 

Active of 

Potentially 

Active? 

Crossed above, at, or 

below Grade? 

Hayward Fault 

Central 

Valley 

1 of 6 

BNSF—UPRR None 

BNSF None 

UPRR N/S None 

BNSF Castle None 

UPRR—BNSF 

Castle 

None 

UPRR—BNSF None 

Station Location Options 

Modesto (Downtown) None 

Briggsmore (Amtrak) None 

Merced (Downtown) None 

Castle AFB None 

C. ALTERNATIVES BY CORRIDOR 

San Francisco to San Jose Corridor 

The San Francisco to San Jose alignment alternatives are located in an area of potentially strong 

ground motion and are potentially subject to liquefaction and/or other types of seismically induced 

ground failure (Figure 3.13-2, Areas Subject to Strong Ground Motion, and Figure 3.13-3, Areas of 

Potential Liquefaction). The alignment alternatives cross buried traces of two potentially active faults 

but do not cross any active faults (Figure 3.13-4a, Quaternary Faults and Alquist-Priolo Zoned Faults). 

Overall, the alignment alternatives ranked high with respect to seismic hazards and medium with 

respect to fault rupture. 

Generally, the proposed alignment alternatives in the San Francisco to San Jose corridor cross the 

nearly flat topography of the San Francisco Bay margin and the Santa Clara Valley. Thus, there 

would be little to no concern about slope stability or difficult excavation along these alternatives. The 

alignments do not cross oil and gas fields or areas of significant mineral resources. 

Oakland to San Jose Corridor

The alignment alternatives in the Oakland to San Jose corridor are located in areas of potentially 

strong ground motion, and to a lesser extent, areas potentially subject to liquefaction and/or other 

types of seismically induced ground failure (Figures 3.13-2 and 3.13-3). Multiple crossings of the 

active Hayward fault would also be a concern. The Union City to Niles Junction alignment segment 

crosses the Hayward fault north of Niles Junction, while the Niles Junction to Niles Wye segment 

crosses back over the Hayward fault, south of Niles Junction. In addition, both the Niles Junction to 

San Jose via Trimble alignment alternative and the Niles Junction to San Jose via I-880 alignment 

alternative cross a buried trace of the potentially active Silver Creek fault. Overall, the alignment 

alternatives in this corridor are ranked high with respect to both seismic hazards and fault rupture. 

Generally, the proposed alignment alternatives in the Oakland to San Jose corridor cross the nearly 

flat topography of the Santa Clara Valley and the alluvial fans between the East Bay hills and San 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Areas Subject to St
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Areas of Potential Liquefaction 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.13 Geology and Soils 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.13-19

Francisco Bay margin. Thus, there would be little to no concern about slope stability or difficult 

excavation along these alignment alternatives. The alignment segments Union City to Niles Junction, 

Niles Junction to Niles Wye, and Niles Wye to Warm Springs traverse the Niles Cone, an area 

identified by the state as a potential sand and gravel resource. However, as part of an existing 

railroad right-of-way or immediately adjacent to the existing right-of-way, they are not expected to 

affect any current quarry operations. These alignment alternatives do not cross oil and gas fields 

(See Figure 13.3-5, Oil and Gas Fields). 

San Jose to Central Valley Corridor

The Pacheco alignment is located in areas of potentially strong ground motion, and to a lesser extent, 

areas potentially subject to liquefaction and/or other types of seismically induced ground failure 

(Figures 3.13-2 and 3.13-3). The Henry Miller and GEA North alignment alternatives are generally 

located in areas of low to moderate ground motion and liquefaction potential. The Pacheco 

alignment alternative crosses the potentially active Silver Creek fault and the active Calaveras fault, 

while both the GEA North and Henry Miller alignment alternatives cross the active Ortigalita fault near 

San Luis Reservoir. Overall, the alignment alternatives in this corridor ranked medium to high with 

respect to both seismic hazards and fault rupture. 

The proposed Gilroy to San Luis Reservoir alignment segment crosses the Diablo Range at grade and 

in a series of tunnels. Locally, steep slopes along this segment are potentially unstable. (See Figure 

13.3-6, Areas of Unstable Slopes). There would be little to no concern about slope stability where 

the Pacheco alignment crosses the nearly flat topography of the Santa Clara Valley and the Central 

Valley or in the tunnels through the Diablo Range. Considering the length of the alignment, the 

potential for slope stability impacts is low along the Pacheco alignment. 

The most likely areas of difficult excavation would be the proposed cut slopes and tunnels in the 

Diablo Range between Gilroy and the San Luis Reservoir. Rocks of the Franciscan Complex are highly 

variable and include some rock units that are typically hard, and fracture zones are common along 

this alignment segment. The Pacheco alignment alternatives between the Diridon and Morgan Hill 

stations also traverses an area identified by the state as a potential sand and gravel resource. These 

alignment alternatives do not cross oil and gas fields or areas of significant mineral resources. 

East Bay to Central Valley Corridor

In the East Bay to Central Valley corridor the alignment alternatives are located in areas of potentially 

strong ground motion, and to a lesser extent, areas potentially subject to liquefaction and/or other 

types of seismically induced ground failure (Figures 3.13-2 and 3.13-3). The active Hayward, 

Calaveras, Greenville, Pleasanton, and Vernalis faults and the potentially active Mission, Livermore, 

Corral Hallow, and San Joaquin fault crossings would also be a concern along these alignment 

alternatives (Figures 3.13-4a, b, and c). During the development of the conceptual alignments, 

extensive efforts were made to cross all active faults at grade, or, if absolutely necessary, on an 

aerial structure. Special efforts were made to not to cross an active fault in a tunnel configuration, 

which is deemed a major design issue—a severe hazard. 

Following circulation of the Draft Program EIR/EIS, FRA and the Authority discovered that the 

location of the Calaveras Fault was incorrectly shown on Figure 2.D-60, Appendix 2D of the Draft 

Program EIR/EIS. The correct location of the fault line is approximately 1,500 feet to the west. 

Figure 3.13-7 shows the prior incorrect location and the correct location of the Calaveras fault line. 

As shown on this figure and on the revised Figure 2.D-60, Appendix 2D, as proposed this HST 

alignment alternative would cross the corrected fault line in tunnel. 

To cross this fault line in tunnel would require additional design and mitigation work to address safety 

issues. Alternatively, to meet the Authority’s objective of crossing major fault zones at grade, as 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.13 Geology and Soils 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.13-20

noted in Chapter 2, would require redesign and realignment of the Altamont Alignment alternatives 

and would result in increased environmental impacts, as well as increased travel times for the 

Altamont alignment alternatives. Overall, the alignment alternatives are ranked high in this corridor 

with respect to both seismic hazards and fault rupture. 

All of the proposed alignment segments that cross the Diablo Range traverse steep and potentially 

unstable slopes. There would be little to no concern about slope stability where the alignments cross 

the nearly flat topography of the San Francisco Bay margin, the Livermore Valley, and the Central 

Valley or where they cross the East Bay hills in tunnel. In addition, considering the lengths of the 

alignments, the potential for slope stability impacts is low through the Diablo Range. 

The most likely areas of difficult excavation would be the tunnel through the East Bay Hills and the 

Diablo Range crossings where rocks of the Franciscan Complex are highly variable and include some 

rock units that are typically hard, and fracture zones are common. In the Livermore Valley, the 

alignment alternatives between Livermore and Pleasanton traverse an area identified by the state as 

a potential sand and gravel resource. However, as part of an existing railroad or highway right-ofway or immediately adjacent to the railroad right-of-way, they are not expected to affect any current 

quarry operations. These alignment alternatives do not cross oil and gas fields. 

San Francisco Bay Crossings

The San Francisco Bay Crossings are located in areas of potentially strong ground motion and are 

potentially subject to liquefaction and/or other types of seismically induced ground failure 

(Figures 3.13-2 and 3.13-3). The Transbay alignment alternative does not cross any known active or 

potentially active faults. However, the Dumbarton and Fremont Central Park alignment alternatives 

cross the potentially active Silver Creek fault, the active Hayward fault and the potentially active 

Mission fault. Overall, the alignment alternatives in the Bay Crossings are ranked high with respect to 

seismic hazards, and the potential for fault rupture is ranked low for the Transbay alignment 

alternative and high for the Dumbarton alignment alternative. 

These alternative alignments do not traverse any steep and potentially unstable slopes or areas of 

difficult bedrock excavation and do not cross oil and gas fields. The eastern end of Dumbarton and 

Fremont Central Park alignment alternatives traverses the Niles Cone, an area identified by the state 

as a potential sand and gravel resource. However, this eastern section of both the Dumbarton and 

Fremont Central Park alignment alternatives pass through urban areas and/or are located along 

existing railroad right of ways and they are not expected to affect any current quarry operations. 

Central Valley Corridor

In the Central Valley corridor, the alignment alternatives are located in areas of potentially low to 

moderate ground motion and low potential for liquefaction and other types of seismically induced 

ground failure (Figures 3.13-2 and 3.13-3). Active fault crossings are not a concern along these 

alignments. Overall, the alignment alternatives in this corridor are ranked low in this region with 

respect to both seismic hazards and fault rupture. 

There would be little to no concern about slope stability or difficult excavation in the Central Valley, 

and these alignment alternatives generally do not cross oil and gas fields or areas of significant 

mineral resources. 

3.13.4 Role of Design Practices in Avoiding and Minimizing Effects 

The Authority has avoided and minimized to the extent possible potential effects related to major 

geologic hazards such as major fault crossings, oil fields, and landslide areas throughout extensive 

alignment studies completed prior to and as part of the prior HST system program EIR/EIS process. The 

Authority’s objective is to avoid fault crossings in tunnel and to avoid fault crossings on aerial sections, 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Quaternary Faul

Zoned Faults 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Quaternary Faul

Zoned Faults 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Quaternary Faul

Zoned Faults in the 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Oil and Gas Fields 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Area
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Figure 3.13-7

Revised Calaveras Fault Location
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.13 Geology and Soils 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.13-21

whenever possible. These objectives have been carried through the development of the HST Alignment 

Alternatives for the Bay Area to Central Valley Region. 

FRA and the Authority discovered that the location of the Calaveras Fault was incorrectly shown in the 

Draft Program EIR/EIS. Thus, as proposed, the Altamont Alignment alternative would cross the actual 

fault line in tunnel. Addressing additional safety issues for crossing the fault in tunnel would require 

additional design work, or meeting the Authority’s objective of crossing major fault zones at grade would 

require redesign and realignment of the Altamont Alignment alternatives and would result in increased 

environmental impacts, as well as increased travel times for the Altamont alignment alternatives. 

Any impacts that remain at the conclusion of project-level environmental review would be mitigated 

through specific design and construction practices described in the following mitigation section.

3.13.5 Mitigation Strategies and CEQA Significance Conclusions 

Based on the analysis above, and considering the CEQA thresholds of significance for geology and soils, 

all HST Alignment Alternatives would have less-than-significant geology and soils impacts related to: 

(1) access to mineral resources and other geologic features with potential scientific values and (2) the 

potential to create hazardous conditions from the release of gases into subsurface facilities. 

The analysis indicates that significant impacts before mitigation are likely for some alignment alternatives 

related to (1) difficult excavation, (2) seismic hazards from ground motion and liquefaction, (3) active 

fault crossings, and (4) slope instability. 

Without mitigation, significant impacts with respect to difficult excavation are anticipated for the 

Patterson Pass and UPRR alignment segments crossings of the Diablo Range, and the Niles to Sunol 

tunnel segment in the East Bay to Central Valley corridor, and for the Gilroy to San Luis Reservoir 

segment for the Pacheco Pass alternative. Significant slope instability impacts prior to mitigation are also 

anticipated for each of these segments, where they are not in tunnel. 

Significant seismic hazards prior to mitigation are anticipated for the (1) San Francisco and San Jose 

corridor, (2) the Oakland to San Jose corridor, (3) the Pacheco Pass alternative between San Jose and 

the Central Valley floor, (4) the East Bay to Central Valley corridor, and (5) the San Francisco Bay 

Crossings. Each of these alternatives is potentially subject to strong ground shaking throughout the 

entire length of their alignments. The most significant hazard would be associated with the tunnel 

crossing of the Calaveras Fault for the East Bay to Central Valley corridor. 

In addition, locally they are subject to liquefaction induced ground failure and active or potentially active 

fault crossings are present along the alternatives in each of these corridors. 

This document contains a broad program analysis that generally identifies the locations of potential 

geologic impact areas of the proposed HST Alignment Alternatives. These are areas that would need 

further study in environmental documentation at the project level.

Mitigation of potential impacts related to geologic and soils conditions must be developed on a sitespecific basis, based on the results of more detailed (design-level) geologic and geotechnical engineering 

studies. Consequently, geologic and geotechnical mitigation would be identified in subsequent, projectlevel analysis rather than at the program level. Following is an overview of general approaches to 

possible geologic and geotechnical mitigation. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.13 Geology and Soils 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.13-22

A. SEISMIC HAZARDS 

The potential for traffic safety issues related to ground shaking during a large earthquake cannot be 

mitigated completely; this holds true for most vehicle transportation systems throughout California. 

However, some strategies are available to reduce hazards, including the following: 

• Design structures to withstand anticipated ground motion, using design options such as 

redundancy and ductility. 

• Design and engineer all structures for earthquake activity using Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria. 

• Prevent liquefaction and seismically induced settlement, and the resulting structural damage and 

traffic hazard impacts, using soil densification techniques such as preloading, stone columns, 

deep dynamic compaction or grouting. 

• Design and install foundations resistant to soil liquefaction and settlement, e.g. deep foundations 

• Utilize motion-sensing instruments to provide ground motion data and a control system to 

temporarily shut down HST operations during or after an earthquake to reduce risks. 

• Apply Section 19 requirements from the most current Caltrans Standard Specifications to ensure 

geotechnically stable slopes are planned and created, using buttress berms, flattened slopes, 

drains, and/or tie-backs in areas of potential seismically induced slope instability. 

B. FAULT CROSSINGS—SURFACE RUPTURE 

The potential for ground rupture along active faults is one of the few geologic hazards that rarely can 

be fully mitigated. However, known active faults are typically monitored, and in some cases fault 

creep is mitigated with routine maintenance, which could include repaving or minor track realignment. Project design could provide for the installation of early warning systems triggered by 

strong ground motion associated with ground rupture. Linear monitoring systems such as time 

domain reflectometers (TDRs) could be installed along major highways and rail lines within the zone 

of potential ground rupture. These devices emit electronic information that is processed in a 

centralized location and could be used to temporarily control traffic and trains, thus reducing 

accidents. In addition, the HST project has been modified in mountain crossing areas where tunnels 

are proposed to avoid crossing known or mapped active faults within the tunnel. A tunnel crossing 

was proposed due to land use, environmental, and topographic conditions, but subsequently 

corrected information indicated that the tunnel as proposed would cross the Calaveras Fault. 

The following mitigation strategies can be refined and applied at the project-specific level and will 

reduce this impact: 

• Install early warning systems triggered by strong ground motion associated with ground rupture, 

such as linear monitoring systems (TDRs) along major highways and rail lines within the zone of 

potential rupture to provide early warnings and allow temporary control of rail and automobile 

traffic to avoid and reduce risks. 

• Avoid active faults to the extent possible. Where avoidance is not possible, cross active faults at 

grade and perpendicular to the fault line, whenever possible. Where tunnel use is necessary 

across an active fault, assure safety through advanced tunnel design and fire/life/safety systems, 

or pursue further design and alignment variations to allow crossing at grade or on aerial 

structures. 

C. SLOPE STABILITY/LANDSLIDES 

• The potential for failure of natural and temporary construction slopes and retention structures 

can be mitigated through geotechnical investigation and review of proposed earthwork and 

foundation excavation plans and profiles. Based on investigation and review, recommendations 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.13 Geology and Soils 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.13-23

would be provided for temporary and permanent slope reinforcement and protection, as needed. 

These recommendations would be incorporated into the construction plans. Additionally, during 

construction, geotechnical inspections will be performed to verify that no new, unanticipated 

conditions are encountered and to verify the proper incorporation of recommendations. Slope 

monitoring may also be incorporated into the final design where warranted. 

The following mitigation strategies can be refined and applied at the project-specific level and will 

reduce this impact: 

• Install temporary and permanent slope reinforcement and protection, based on geotechnical 

investigations and review of proposed earthwork and foundation excavation plans. 

• Apply Section 19 requirements from the most current Caltrans Standard Specifications to ensure 

geotechnically stable slopes are planned and created, using buttress berms, flattened slopes, 

drains, and/or tie-backs in areas of potential slope instability. 

• Conduct geotechnical inspections during construction to verify that no new, unanticipated 

conditions are encountered 

• Incorporate slope monitoring into final design. 

D. AREAS OF DIFFICULT EXCAVATION 

The potential for difficult excavation in areas of hard rock and faults cannot be fully mitigated, but it 

can be anticipated so that safety is ensured, potential environmental impacts are addressed, and 

project schedule problems are avoided to the extent possible. This includes focusing future 

geotechnical engineering and geologic investigations in these areas and incorporating the findings 

into project construction documents, communicating with the contractors during the bid process, and 

monitoring actual conditions during and after construction. 

The following mitigation strategies can be refined and applied at the project-specific level and will 

reduce this impact: 

• Identify areas of potentially difficult excavation to ensure safe practices. 

• Focus future geotechnical engineering and geologic investigations in areas of potentially difficult 

excavation. 

• Monitor conditions during and after construction. 

• Based on geologic and geotechnical investigations, incorporate appropriate tunnel excavation and 

lining techniques in the project design to ensure safety.

E. HAZARDS RELATED TO OIL AND GAS FIELDS 

Hazards related to potential migration of hazardous gases attributable to the presence of oil fields, 

gas fields, or other subsurface sources can be mitigated by following strict federal and state 

Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA/CalOSHA) regulatory requirements for 

excavations, and consulting with other agencies, such as the Department of Conservation (Division of 

Oil and Gas) and the Department of Toxic and Substances Control, as appropriate, regarding known 

areas of concern. Mitigation measures would include using safe and explosion-proof equipment 

during construction and testing for gases regularly. Active monitoring systems and alarms would be 

required in underground construction areas and facilities where subsurface gases are present. Gas 

barrier systems have also been used effectively for subways in the Los Angeles area. Installing gas 

detection systems can monitor the effectiveness of these systems. 

The following mitigation strategies can be refined and applied at the project-specific level and will 

reduce this impact: 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.13 Geology and Soils 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.13-24

• Follow federal and state OSHA/CalOSHA regulatory requirements for excavations. 

• Consult with other agencies, such as the Department of Conservation’s Division of Oil and Gas 

and the Department of Toxic Substances Control, regarding known areas of concern. 

• Use safe and explosion-proof equipment during construction. 

• Test for gases regularly. 

• Install monitoring systems and alarms in underground construction areas and facilities where 

subsurface gases are present. 

• Install gas barrier systems or gas collection systems and passive or active gas venting systems in 

areas where subsurface gases are identified 

F. MINERAL RESOURCES 

In some cases, mineral resources sites may represent valuable sources of materials that either should 

be completely developed prior to use for another purpose or should be avoided by proposed facilities 

to the extent feasible. This practice could result in realignment and/or proposed relocation or 

modification of other proposed facilities. To mitigate the potential for significant project redesign, 

important mineral sites should be identified as early as possible. 

The above mitigation strategies are expected to reduce the geologic and soils impacts of the HST 

Alignment Alternatives to a less-than-significant level. Additional environmental assessment will allow 

a more precise evaluation in the second-tier, project-level environmental analyses. 

Subsequent Analysis

As described in Method of Evaluation of Impacts above, this analysis was performed generally on the 

basis of existing data available in GIS format. The data provided in this section are intended for 

planning purposes, are not meant to be definitive for specific sites, and have not been independently 

confirmed. More detailed geologic/geotechnical studies would be required at the project level and 

likely would include subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, and engineering analyses to support 

detailed alignment design and mitigation of potential impacts associated with geologic and soils 

conditions, including seismic hazards, slope stability, areas of difficult excavation, areas of potential 

oil and gas along proposed tunnel alignments, and mineral resources. In addition, the detailed 

geologic/geotechnical studies should address expansive and corrosive soils. 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.14-1

3.14 Hydrology and Water Resources 

This section describes the environmental setting (regulatory setting and existing conditions) for hydrology 

and water quality relating to the proposed project, the impacts on hydrology and water quality that would 

result from implementation of the HST system, and mitigation measures that would reduce these 

impacts1

. 

3.14.1 Regulatory Requirements and Methods of Evaluation 

A. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 

Several federal and state laws regulate and protect hydrologic resources, floodplains, and water 

quality. Below is a list of these statutes. 

Federal Laws and Regulations

Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.) 

The purpose of the CWA is restoration and maintenance of the chemical, physical, and biological 

integrity of the nation’s waters through prevention and elimination of pollution. The CWA applies to 

discharges of pollutants into waters of the United States. The State Water Board is the state agency 

with primary responsibility for implementation of state and federally established regulations relating 

to hydrology and water quality issues. Typically, all regulatory requirements are implemented by the 

State Water Board through the nine different RWQCBs established throughout the state. The CWA 

operates on the principle that any discharge of pollutants into the nation’s waters is prohibited unless 

specifically authorized by a permit; permit review is the CWA’s primary regulatory tool. The following 

CWA sections are most relevant to this analysis. 

Section 404 Permit for Fill Material in Waters and Wetlands 

CWA Section 404 regulates the discharge of dredged and fill materials into waters of the United 

States, which include oceans, bays, rivers, streams, lakes, ponds, and wetlands. Refer to Section 

3.15, “Biological Resources and Wetlands,” for further discussion. 

Section 402 NPDES Program 

CWA Section 402 regulates discharges to surface waters through the NPDES program, administered 

by the EPA. In California, the State Water Board is authorized by the EPA to oversee the NPDES 

program through the RWQCBs (see related discussion under Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control 

Act below). The NPDES program provides for both general permits (those that cover a number of 

similar or related activities) and individual permits. Most construction projects that disturb 1 ac 

(0.4 ha) of land or more are required to obtain coverage under the NPDES General Permit for 

Construction Activities (General Construction Permit), which requires the property owner to file a NOI 

to discharge stormwater and to prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan 

(SWPPP). The SWPPP includes a site map and a description of proposed construction activities, along 

with demonstration of compliance with relevant local ordinances and regulations. The SWPPP must 

also describe the project-specific BMPs that will be implemented to prevent or reduce the discharge 

of construction-related pollutants, including sediments, into stormwater runoff and surface drainage. 

Permittees are required to conduct monitoring and reporting to ensure that BMPs are correctly 

implemented and effective in controlling the discharge of construction-related pollutants into 

stormwater runoff. 

 

1

 See Section 3.0, Introduction, for an explanation of how this section fits together with the HST Network Alternatives presented in 

Chapter 7, as well as for an overview of the information presented in the other chapters. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.14 Hydrology and Water Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.14-2

Section 401 Clean Water Quality Certification 

Under CWA Section 401, applicants for a federal license or permit to conduct activities that may 

result in the discharge of a pollutant into waters of the United States must obtain certification from 

the state in which the discharge would originate, or, if appropriate, from the interstate water 

pollution control agency with jurisdiction over affected waters at the point where the discharge would 

originate. Therefore, all projects that have a federal component and may affect the quality of the 

state’s waters (including projects that require federal agency approval, such as issuance of a Section 

404 permit) must also comply with CWA Section 401. Section 401 certification or waiver is under the 

jurisdiction of the applicable RWQCBs. 

Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) 

Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, administered by the USACE, requires permits for all 

structures, such as riprap, and activities, such as dredging, in navigable waters of the United States. 

Refer to Section 3.15, “Biological Resources and Wetlands,” for further discussion. 

Executive Order 11988—Floodplain Management (U.S. DOT Order 5650.2; 23 C.F.R. 650, Subpart A) 

Executive Order (EO) 11988 directs all federal agencies to avoid to the extent practicable and feasible 

all short-term and long-term adverse impacts associated with floodplain modification and to avoid 

direct and indirect support of development within 100-year floodplains whenever there is a 

reasonable alternative available. 

Projects that encroach upon 100-year floodplains must be supported with additional specific 

information. The U.S. Department of Transportation Order 5650.2, Floodplain Management and 

Protection, prescribes “policies and procedures for ensuring that proper consideration is given to the 

avoidance and mitigation of adverse floodplain impacts in agency actions, planning programs and 

budget requests.” The order does not apply to areas with Zone C (areas of minimal flooding as 

shown on Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA] Flood Insurance Rate Maps [FIRM]). 

Environmental review documents should indicate potential risks and impacts from proposed 

transportation facilities. 

Flood Disaster Protection Act (42 U.S.C. 4001–4128; DOT Order 5650.2, 23 C.F.R. 650 Subpart A; 

and 23 C.F.R. 771) 

The purpose of the Flood Disaster Protection Act is to identify flood-prone areas and provide 

insurance. The act requires purchase of insurance for buildings in special flood-hazard areas. The 

act is applicable to any federally assisted acquisition or construction project in an area identified as 

having special flood hazards. Projects should avoid construction in, or develop a design to be 

consistent with, FEMA-identified flood-hazard areas. 

State Laws and Regulations

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act (Water Code § 13000 et seq.) 

The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, passed in 1969, articulates with the federal CWA (see 

the Clean Water Act section above). It established the State Water Board and divided the state into 

nine regions, each overseen by an RWQCB. The State Water Board is the primary state agency 

responsible for protecting the quality of the state’s surface and groundwater supplies, but much of its 

daily implementation authority is delegated to the nine RWQCBs, which are responsible for 

implementing CWA, Sections 401, 402, and 303(d). In general, the State Water Board manages both 

water rights and statewide regulation of water quality, while the RWQCBs focus exclusively on water 

quality within their regions. 

Three of the RWQCBs have jurisdiction over the water allocation and water quality in the area 

impacted by the HST (Central Coast RWQCB, Central Valley RWQCB, and the San Francisco RWQCB). 

See Appendix 3.14-B for a description of the RWQCBs. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.14 Hydrology and Water Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.14-3

There are a number of local regulatory and permitting agencies, such as flood control districts, 

irrigation districts, and water districts, that may have facilities that are affected by the project. These 

districts have different responsibilities to their customers but generally are required to provide 

drinking water, flood control, or irrigation water and administer local agreements regarding the 

quality and quantity of water delivered. 

Dewatering Activities 

On June 18, 2002, the Central Valley RWQCB (CVRWQCB) adopted Order No. 5-00-175, NPDES 

Permit No. CAG995001 (General Dewatering Permit). This general NPDES permit covers the 

discharge to waters of the United States of clean or relatively pollutant-free wastewater that poses 

little or no threat to water quality. The following categories are covered by this order: well 

development water, construction dewatering, pump/well testing, pipeline/tank pressure testing, 

pipeline/tank flushing or dewatering, condensate discharges, water supply system discharges, and 

miscellaneous dewatering/low threat discharges. This would apply to the HST system if there were 

use of a sheet pile cofferdam in any water body construction that would require dewatering. It could 

also apply to the proposed project for the use of simple wash water construction dewatering. 

The districts in the project area include: 

• Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. 

• Central California Irrigation District. 

• Del Puerto Water District. 

• Grassland Water District. 

• Merced Irrigation District. 

• San Benito County Water District. 

• San Joaquin River Group Authority. 

• San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. 

• San Luis and Delta-Mendota Water Authority. 

• San Mateo County Department of Public Works. 

• Santa Clara Water District. 

• The Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program. 

See Appendix 3.14-B for a comprehensive description of each one of these local districts. 

Basin Plans and Water Quality Objectives 

The Porter-Cologne Act provides for the development and periodic review of basin plans that 

designate beneficial uses of California’s major rivers and groundwater basins and establish narrative 

and numerical water quality objectives for those waters. Beneficial uses represent the services and 

qualities of a water body (i.e., the reasons why the water body is considered valuable), while water 

quality objectives represent the standards necessary to protect and support those beneficial uses. 

Basin plans are primarily implemented by using the NPDES permitting system to regulate waste 

discharges so that water quality objectives are met (see discussion of the NPDES system in the Clean 

Water Act section above). Basin plans are updated every 3 years and provide the technical basis for 

determining waste discharge requirements and taking enforcement actions. Basin plans are adopted 

and amended by the RWQCBs for all nine regions.
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.14 Hydrology and Water Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.14-4

Cobey-Alquist Flood Plain Management Act (Water Code § 8400 et seq.): 

The California Reclamation Board provides policy direction and coordination for the flood control 

efforts of state and local agencies along the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and their tributaries 

in cooperation with USACE. The board cooperates with various federal, state, and local government 

agencies in establishing, planning, constructing, operating, and maintaining flood-control works. The 

California Reclamation Board also exercises regulatory authority to maintain the integrity of the 

existing flood-control system and designated floodways by issuing permits for encroachments. 

California Department of Fish and Game Code (§ 1601–1603 [Streambed Alteration]) 

Under Sections 1601–1603 of the Fish and Game Code, agencies are required to notify the CDFG 

prior to implementing any project that would divert, obstruct, or change the natural flow or bed, 

channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake. 

B. METHOD OF EVALUATION OF IMPACTS 

Impact Evaluation

Potential impacts on surface hydrologic resources, floodplains, and surface water quality were 

evaluated using a combination of both qualitative and quantitative assessment methods. The 

existing conditions described for the No Project Alternative provide the primary basis of comparison. 

Potentially direct impacts are defined by the area within 50 ft total width of all alignment segments 

that have two tracks and 100 ft total width for segments that have four tracks (e.g., station location 

option areas and shared use corridors like Caltrain). 

Indirect impacts may include such downstream effects as sedimentation, turbidity, impacts to waterdependent species, changes in flow-rate, erosion due to run-off, and ponding due to changes in flood 

flows. These impacts typically occur outside of the project footprint. Without project-level detail, it is 

difficult to identify specific locations for indirect impacts. Therefore, potential indirect impacts for 

hydrology and water quality are defined by the area within 200 ft total width of the entire alignment 

alternative regardless of if there are two tracks, four tracks, and/or station location options. 

Potential tunnel impacts on hydrology and water resources were estimated from known information 

for groundwater and underground streams. These impacts, in addition to potential impacts from 

streams aboveground, were identified and discussed qualitatively. 

Qualitative Assessment

A qualitative assessment was used to compare the alignment alternatives when discussing issues 

such as runoff rates, sedimentation, or other items that would ultimately require a more detailed 

analytic approach (i.e., at the project level) than appropriate for a program-level analysis. This also 

includes a description of the number and name (if available) of the water resources each alignment 

alternative would cross and therefore potentially impact. The number and names of water resources 

were determined using three different sources of information: northern and southern California 

atlases, aerial images, and GIS data files. Not all water resources identified have names, and 

therefore placeholders for unnamed canals or unnamed creeks were used. 

Quantitative Assessment

For the quantitative assessment, readily available information on wetland areas, stream locations, 

existing water quality problem areas, flood zones, and general soil information was used to estimate 

the magnitude of the potential areas of direct and indirect impacts for the HST Alignment 

Alternatives. The following steps were followed to estimate the potential areas of impact for 

floodplains and water quality. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.14 Hydrology and Water Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.14-5

• Acreage of Special Flood Hazard Areas, as defined by FEMA on Flood Insurance Rate Maps, in the 

study area was identified and estimated to evaluate the area of floodplain potentially affected by 

project alternatives (Federal Emergency Management Agency 2007). 

• Acreage of surface waters (lakes) and the linear feet of surface waters (rivers and streams) in 

the study area was estimated, using U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 1:24,000 scale digital line 

graphs of blueline streams, including ephemeral streams as mapped. The linear feet of surface 

water was calculated based on the width of the HST crossing of rivers, streams, and canals in the 

study area. (U.S. Geological Survey 2006; U.S. Geological Survey with U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency 2006; and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 2005.) 

• Waters with impaired water quality, i.e., waters included on the Section 303(d) CWA list 

distributed by the State Water Board, in the study area were identified along with the impairment 

(pollutant/stressor) and an indication of whether the impairment has the potential to be further 

affected by the proposed project. State GIS data from 2002 and 2006 TMDL description data 

were used to determine the location of the impaired segment and the type of pollutants causing 

the impairment. The 2006 description data was cross-checked with 2002 descriptions in the GIS 

files to ensure no duplicity or missing information (State Water Resources Control Board and 

Regional Water Quality Control Boards 2003). 

• Acreage of areas of potential soil erosion in the study area was estimated to evaluate areas 

potentially affected by the project alternatives. The location of the potential erosive conditions 

was identified as those areas with a combination of erosive soils and high slopes, evaluated as 

the product of kfact and slopeh (listed in STATSGO data). Those conditions where kfact 

multiplied by slopeh is greater than 3.0 are potentially susceptible to soil erosion, and acreage of 

these areas within the study area was determined. This information was used to estimate 

potential erosion and sedimentation characteristics of the project area (U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service 2006). 

• Acreage of groundwater was calculated using “Ground Water Basins” (Department of Water 

Resources, Division of Mines and Geology 2000). 

Other sources used in calculating hydrology and water resources impacts include the following: 

• California Department of Resources 2005. 

• DeLorme 2003a and b. 

• State Water Resources Control Board 2002a, b, c, d, e, and f. 

C. CEQA SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA 

Under CEQA, a project may have a significant impact on hydrology and water quality if it would: 

• Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. 

• Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, 

resulting in a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., 

the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level that would not support 

existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted). 

• Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the 

alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion 

or siltation on site or off site. 

• Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the 

alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of 

surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on site or off site. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.14 Hydrology and Water Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.14-6

• Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned 

stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. 

• Otherwise substantially degrade water quality. 

• Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows. 

• Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, 

including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. 

3.14.2 Affected Environment 

A. STUDY AREA DEFINED 

Direct Impacts

The potential direct impact study area is defined by the number of tracks of an HST Alignment 

Alternative and the presence of proposed new station facilities. This methodology allows for a larger 

area of analysis where the alignment alternative has a greater potential to affect the environment 

(i.e., is wider with more tracks). For alignment alternatives with two tracks, the area analyzed for 

direct impacts is 50 ft wide (25 ft on either side of the centerline of the alignment). For alignment 

alternatives with four tracks and/or proposed new station facilities, the area analyzed for direct 

impacts measures 100 ft in width (50 ft on either side of the centerline of the alignment alternative). 

Indirect Impacts (Potentially Affected Area)

The potential indirect impact study area for hydrology and water quality is defined as the area within 

200 ft (100 ft of either side of the centerline) of all alignment alternatives and station location 

options. This area is in addition to and does include the direct impact study area described above. 

Potential tunnel impacts on hydrology/water resources were also considered using known information 

for groundwater and underground streams. 

Topography and Climate

The topography of the hydrology study area ranges from flat coastal and valley areas to mountain 

ranges, as discussed in Section 3.13, “Geology and Soils.” On average, about 75% of California’s 

annual precipitation falls between November and March; 50% occurs between December and 

February. Northern California is much wetter than southern California, with more than 70% of 

California’s average annual precipitation and runoff occurring in the northern part of the state 

(California Department of Water Resources 2003). 

B. GENERAL DISCUSSION OF HYDROLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES 

Floodplains

Floodplains are lands next to a river that are inundated by water when the river overflows its banks. 

FEMA designates and maps floodplains. In support of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), 

FEMA has undertaken flood hazard identification and mapping to produce Flood Hazard Boundary 

Maps, Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FRIMs), and Flood Boundary and Floodway Maps. The zone of 

interest for the analysis of hydrologic resources in this program-level evaluation is defined as a 

special flood hazard area (SFHA) or Zone A, which is the flood insurance rate zone that corresponds 

to the 100-year flood hazard area in the hydrologic resource study area. Figure 3.14-1 shows SFHAs 

in the general vicinity of the hydrologic resources study area. 

Floodplains are important because they provide floodwater storage and attenuate the risk of 

downstream flooding, provide important habitat for native species (discussed in Section 3.15, 

“Biological Resources and Wetlands”), improve water quality by allowing filtration of sediments and 

other contaminants, and may provide locations for groundwater recharge. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Bay Area to Centr

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.14 Hydrology and Water Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.14-7

Floodplains encompass floodways, which are the primary areas that convey flood flows. Floodways 

are typically channels of a stream, including any adjacent areas. NFIP has introduced the concept of 

floodways and floodplains to assist local communities in floodplain management. The floodway is the 

channel of a stream, including any adjacent floodplain areas that must be kept free of encroachment 

so that the 100-year flood can be carried without substantial increases to flood heights. The area 

between the floodway and the 100-year floodplain boundary is referred to as the floodway fringe. 

Any approved encroachment may take place within the floodway fringe. According to guidelines 

established by FEMA, increase in flood height in the floodway due to any encroachment in the 

floodway fringe areas may not exceed 12 in (30.48 cm), provided that hazardous velocities are not 

produced in the water body. Constructing levees, rail and road embankments, buildings, etc., that 

encroach on floodplains may reduce the flood-carrying capacity and increase flood elevations. 

Surface Waters

For this analysis, surface waters include improved flood control or drainage channels, canals, 

intermittent river and stream channels, permanent river and stream channels, ponds, lakes, 

reservoirs, coastal estuaries and lagoons, and sloughs. In addition, other human-made water 

features include aqueducts and salt evaporating ponds.

The California State Water Project (SWP) is a water storage and delivery system of reservoirs, 

aqueducts, power plants, and pumping facilities. Its main purpose is to store water and distribute it 

to urban and agricultural water suppliers in northern California, the San Francisco Bay Area, the San 

Joaquin Valley, the central coast, and southern California. The SWP includes about 660 mi (1,062 

km) of open canals and pipelines. 

The federal Central Valley Project (CVP) is a long-term project for the storage and delivery of waters 

of the Sacramento River basin in the north for use in the San Francisco Bay area, the farmlands of 

the San Joaquin Valley, and other metropolitan areas in the south. 

The CVP’s primary purposes include flood control; improvement of navigation on Central Valley rivers; 

development of hydroelectric power, irrigation, and municipal and industrial water supply; protection 

of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta from salt water intrusion by allowing sufficient delivery of 

freshwater to the Delta; and protection and enhancement of fish and wildlife.

Streams and lakes are important because they support fish and wildlife, contribute to the water 

supply, convey floodwaters, and may contribute to or attenuate the risk of downstream flooding. 

They provide important habitat for native species and may support wetland and riparian habitats 

(discussed in Section 3.15, “Biological Resources and Wetlands”), direct pathways connecting to 

downstream ecological or human resources, and locations for groundwater recharge. 

Lagoons and estuaries are sheltered, semi-enclosed, brackish bodies of water along shorelines where 

fresh water and saltwater interface through tidal flows and currents. Pollution from stormwater 

runoff, industrial discharges, and boats can damage these resources, especially if their tidal flow is 

limited. The amount, frequency, duration, and quality of freshwater flows affect the salinity levels, 

which in turn dictate the types of biological resources associated with a particular water body. 

Figure 3.14-2 shows surface waters in the general vicinity of the hydrologic resources study area. 

(See Section 3.15, “Biological Resources and Wetlands,” for a discussion of wetlands). 

Groundwater

Groundwater is found in subsurface water-bearing formations. A groundwater basin is defined as a 

hydrogeologic unit containing one large aquifer or several connected and interrelated aquifers. 

Groundwater basins, which do not necessarily coincide with surface drainage basins, are defined by 

surface features and/or geological features such as faults, impermeable layers, and natural or 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.14 Hydrology and Water Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.14-8

artificial divides in the water table surface. The elevation of groundwater varies with the amount of 

withdrawal and the amount of recharge to the groundwater basin. Groundwater basins may be 

recharged naturally as precipitation infiltrates and/or artificially with imported or reclaimed water. 

Shallow groundwater is subject to potential impacts from dewatering during construction. 

Figure 3.14-3 shows groundwater basins within the general vicinity of the hydrologic resources study 

area. 

C. GENERAL DISCUSSION OF WATER QUALITY 

Surrounding land uses affect surface water and groundwater quality. Both point-source2

 and 

nonpoint-source3

 discharges contribute contaminants to surface waters. Pollutant sources in urban 

areas include parking lots and streets, rooftops, exposed earth at construction sites, and landscaped 

areas. Pollutant sources in rural/agricultural areas primarily include agricultural fields and operations. 

The impacts of nonpoint-source pollutants on aquatic systems are many and varied. Polluted runoff 

waters can result in impacts on aquatic ecosystems, public use, and human health from ground and 

surface water contamination; damage to and destruction of wildlife habitat; decline in fisheries; and 

loss of recreational opportunities. Small soil particles washed into streams can smother spawning 

grounds and marsh habitat. Suspended small soil particulates can restrict light penetration into water 

and limit photosynthesis of aquatic biota. Metals and petroleum hydrocarbons washed off roadways 

and parking lots and fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides from landscaped areas may cause toxic 

responses (acute or long-term) in aquatic life or may harm water supply sources such as reservoirs or 

aquifers. 

Erosion

Potential impacts on water quality may result from construction activity (e.g., grading, which removes 

vegetation, exposing soil to wind and water erosion). A potential erosive condition occurs in areas 

with a combination of erosive soil types and steep slopes. Erosion can result in sedimentation that 

ultimately flows into surface waters. Contaminants in runoff waters may include sediment, 

hydrocarbons (e.g., fuels and solvents), metals, pesticides, bacteria, nutrients, and trash. 

Figure 3.14-4 shows areas with soils susceptible to erosion in the general vicinity of the hydrologic 

resources study area. 

Impaired Waters

Some water bodies have been given special status under the CWA. The Section 303(d) list of CWA 

requires each state to identify waters that will not achieve water quality standards after application of 

effluent limits and to develop plans for water quality improvement. For each water body and 

pollutant for which water quality is considered impaired, the state must develop load-based (as 

opposed to concentration-based) limits called total maximum daily loads (TMDLs). TMDL is the 

maximum amount of pollution (both point and non-point sources) that a water body can assimilate 

without violating state water quality standards. Priorities for development of TMDLs are set by the 

state, based on the severity of the pollution and the beneficial uses of the waters. The EPA’s TMDL 

program provides a process for determining pollution budgets for the nation’s most impaired waters. 

Pollutant loading limits are set and implemented by the State Water Board under the Porter-Cologne 

Act. The program includes development of water quality standards, issuance of permits to control 

discharges, and enforcement action against violators. 

 

2 Point source is a stationary location or fixed facility, such as the end of a pipe, from which pollutants are discharged. (U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 2002.) 

3 Nonpoint source pollution is caused by rainfall moving over and through the ground. As the runoff moves, it picks up and carries 

away natural and human-made pollutants, finally depositing them into lakes, rivers, wetlands, coastal waters, and even 

underground sources of drinking water (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2002). 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Bay Area to Central Va
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Bay Area to Central 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Bay Area to Central V

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.14 Hydrology and Water Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.14-9

D. HYDROLOGY/WATER RESOURCES AND WATER QUALITY OF THE STUDY AREA 

This region includes central California from the San Francisco Bay area (San Francisco and Oakland) 

south to the Santa Clara Valley and east across the Diablo Range to the Central Valley and east 

across the Altamont Pass to the Central Valley. 

San Francisco to San Jose Corridor

The San Francisco to San Jose corridor includes the western portion of the San Francisco Bay area 

from San Francisco (San Francisco County), south through eastern San Mateo County to San Jose 

(Santa Clara County). The San Francisco Bay and the Santa Clara Valley geophysical features 

dominate the areas traversed by this corridor. The major watershed that corresponds to these 

geophysical features is the San Francisco Bay watershed, including the Guadalupe River and Coyote 

Creek. Elevation along the San Francisco to San Jose corridor ranges from sea level to around 200 ft 

(61 m). 

Floodplains 

As delineated by FEMA, 100-year floodplains have been mapped along the streams bordering San 

Francisco Bay, along Coyote and Suisun Creeks, and along the Guadalupe River. 

Surface Waters 

Major streams and surface waters in the study area include San Francisco Bay and the Guadalupe 

River. The study area also includes extensive tidal flats and salt evaporating ponds in the South Bay 

and the estuaries of Coyote Creek and Guadalupe River. In addition, the Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct is a 

major water resource in this area. 

Groundwater 

Relatively uniform, unconfined aquifers and associated water tables are expected in the San 

Francisco Bay/Santa Clara Valley Basins to the west. The Santa Clara Valley Basin is composed of the 

Santa Clara Subbasin and the San Mateo Subbasin along this corridor. Additionally, there is the San 

Francisco sand dune area and the Visitation Valley Basin that provide groundwater. Groundwater in 

this basin is routinely pumped for domestic purposes and is subject to long-term fluctuations in water 

levels due to overdraft and recharge conditions. Groundwater is generally considered shallow in 

recharge/discharge areas near San Francisco Bay. 

Oakland to San Jose Corridor

The Oakland to San Jose corridor includes the eastern portion of the San Francisco Bay Area from 

Oakland in Alameda County south through Fremont and Milpitas to San Jose. The San Francisco Bay, 

the Santa Clara Valley, and the Diablo Range are the geophysical features that dominate the areas 

traversed by this corridor. The major watershed that corresponds to these geophysical features is 

the San Francisco Bay watershed, including the Guadalupe River and Coyote Creek. Elevation along 

the Oakland to San Jose corridor ranges from sea level to around 200 ft (61 m). 

Floodplains 

As delineated by FEMA, 100-year floodplains have been mapped along the streams bordering and 

leading into San Francisco Bay. 

Surface Waters 

Major streams and surface waters in the study area in this region include San Francisco Bay, Oakland 

Harbor, San Leandro Bay, and San Leandro and San Lorenzo Creeks. The Sacramento, San Joaquin, 

and Merced Rivers empty into the bay delta, which ultimately discharges into San Francisco Bay. The 

study area also includes Lake Merritt Tidal Channel, Quarry Lakes, extensive tidal flats and salt 

evaporating ponds in the South Bay, and the estuaries of Coyote Creek and Guadalupe River. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.14 Hydrology and Water Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.14-10

Groundwater 

The Santa Clara Valley Basin is the primary source for groundwater along this corridor with three of 

its subbasins: the Alameda East Bay, the Niles Cone, and the Santa Clara. Groundwater in these 

basins is routinely pumped for domestic uses and is subject to long-term fluctuations in water levels 

due to overdraft and recharge conditions. Groundwater is generally considered shallow in 

recharge/discharge areas near San Francisco Bay. Occurrence of groundwater in the Diablo Range 

would likely be influenced by fracture patterns and rock type. 

San Jose to Central Valley Corridor

The San Jose to Central Valley corridor includes the Santa Clara Valley from San Jose south through 

Morgan Hill and Gilroy, and then east through the Coast Range into the Central Valley. The major 

geophysical regions include the Santa Clara Valley, the southern reaches of the Diablo Range, and 

the Central Valley. The major watersheds include the San Francisco Bay watershed, including the 

Guadalupe River and Coyote Creek, the Pajaro River watershed, and the San Joaquin River 

watershed. Elevation along the San Jose to Central Valley Corridor ranges from 150 ft (46 m) to 

1,200 ft (366 m). 

In addition, The GEA is located in the area of this corridor. The GEA, located north, east, and south 

of the city of Los Banos in Merced County, encompasses approximately 180,000 ac (72,843.71 ha). 

It is the largest wetland complex in California and contains the largest block of contiguous wetlands 

remaining in the Central Valley.4

 This region is considered a critical component of the Central Valley 

wintering habitat for waterfowl and has been recognized as a resource of international significance. 

Included in the GEA are the San Luis National Wildlife Refuge and the Kesterson National Wildlife 

Refuge. 

Floodplains 

As delineated by FEMA, 100-year floodplains have been mapped along the Pajaro River and its 

tributaries.

Surface Waters 

Major streams and surface waters in the study area in this region include the Guadalupe, Pajaro, San 

Joaquin, Chowchilla, and Merced Rivers. The Hetch Hetchy and California Aqueducts, Don Castro and 

San Luis Reservoirs, and O’Neill Forebay are also located in the study area in this region. In addition, 

there are a number of managed wetland areas including Mud Slough, Salt Slough, Los Banos Wildlife 

Area, Kesterson National Wildlife Refuge, and Kesterson Reservoir. Many of the streams and creeks 

in this region are considered impaired waters. Orestimba Creek and the surrounding watershed has 

been designated as an aquatic resource of national importance. In addition, there are a number of 

manmade canals and channels that crisscross the Central Valley alignments. 

Groundwater 

Relatively uniform, unconfined aquifers and associated water tables are expected in the two valleys 

at either end of the proposed alignment alternatives, the Central Valley to the east and the San 

Francisco Bay/Santa Clara Valley to the west. In the Central Valley, the largest groundwater basin is 

the San Joaquin, composed of the Delta Mendota Subbasin, the Merced Subbasin, the Chowchilla 

Subbasin, and the Madera Subbasin along the HST corridor. In the San Francisco Bay/Santa Clara 

Valley, the largest groundwater basins are the Santa Clara Valley, composed of the Santa Clara 

Subbasin, and the Gilroy-Hollister Valley Basin, composed of the Bolsa Area and the Llagas Area. 

Groundwater in these basins is routinely pumped for domestic and agricultural purposes and is 

subject to long-term fluctuations in water levels due to overdraft and recharge conditions. 

Groundwater is generally considered shallow in recharge/discharge areas near the San Joaquin River 

 

4

 Grasslands Water District, Land Use and Economics Study: Grasslands Ecological Area (July 2001), P. 2 (hereafter “Grassland 

Water District”). 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.14 Hydrology and Water Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.14-11

and its tributaries in the Central Valley, near San Francisco Bay, and in the area of the SacramentoSan Joaquin River Delta. Occurrence of groundwater in the Diablo Range would likely be influenced 

by fracture patterns and rock type. 

East Bay to Central Valley Corridor

The East Bay to Central Valley corridor includes the East San Francisco Bay near Union City (Alameda 

County) east to the Livermore Valley (Pleasanton and Livermore), across Patterson Pass into the 

Central Valley. The dominant geophysical features traversed by this corridor include the San 

Francisco Bay, the Diablo Range, and the Central Valley. Major watersheds include the San Francisco 

Bay watershed, the Las Positas watershed, and the San Joaquin River watershed. Elevation along 

the East Bay to Central Valley corridor ranges from 100 ft (30 m) to 1,300 ft (396 m). 

Floodplains 

As delineated by FEMA, 100-year floodplains have been mapped along the San Joaquin River and its 

tributaries. 

Surface Waters 

Major streams and surface waters in the study area in this region include the San Joaquin River, the 

Delta Mendota Canal, and the California Aqueduct. There are a number of additional manmade 

canals and channels that crisscross the East Bay to Central Valley alignments. 

Groundwater 

Relatively uniform, unconfined aquifers and associated water tables are expected in the San 

Francisco Bay/Santa Clara Valley groundwater basins to the west. This corridor is composed of a 

number of groundwater basins, as well as subbasins, including the Santa Clara Valley Basin and the 

Niles Subbasin; the San Joaquin Valley Basin and the Eastern San Joaquin and Tracy subbasins; 

Livermore Valley Basin; and Sunol Valley Basin. Groundwater in this basin is routinely pumped for 

domestic and agricultural purposes and is subject to long-term fluctuations in water levels due to 

overdraft and recharge conditions. Groundwater is generally considered shallow in 

recharge/discharge areas near the San Joaquin River and its tributaries in the Central Valley, near 

San Francisco Bay, and in the area of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. Occurrence of 

groundwater in the Diablo Range would likely be influenced by fracture patterns and rock type. 

San Francisco Bay Crossings

The San Francisco Bay Crossings study area includes the San Francisco Bay area from San Francisco 

east to Oakland and the San Francisco Bay area from North Fair Oaks (San Mateo County) east to 

Union City. The major geophysical feature traversed is the San Francisco Bay, which is the major 

watershed. Elevation ranges from sea level to 50 ft (15 m).

The San Francisco Bay is an estuary divided in to the South, Central, and North Bay. It has a deep 

central channel, broad mudflats, and fringing marsh. The combined flows of the Sacramento and 

San Joaquin watersheds flow through the Sacramento Delta and into the San Francisco Bay 

(Department of Water Resources 2005, page 3-1). 

The immediate region is generally highly urbanized and includes the major cities of San Francisco, 

Oakland, and the San Jose Metropolitan area. Water use in the Bay region is predominantly urban 

with more than 50% of the use as residential (Department of Water Resources 2005, page 3-1). 

Although local groundwater only accounts for about 5% of the region’s average water supply, the 

more heavily used basins include the Santa Clara Valley, Livermore Valley, Westside, Niles Cone, 

Napa-Sonoma Valley, and Petaluma Valley groundwater basins(Department of Water Resources 

2005, page 3-3). 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.14 Hydrology and Water Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.14-12

Because the estuary’s watershed is highly urbanized, contaminant loads come from both nonpoint 

and point sources, including stormwater runoff, construction site runoff, pesticide and erosion from 

agricultural land runoff, discharges from refineries, ships discharging ballast water, waste, and other 

industrial uses. (Department of Water Resources 2005, page 3-4 and 3-9). The Napa, Petaluma, and 

Guadalupe Rivers; the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta; and the Central Valley all contribute different 

pollutants to the estuary. Sediment concentrations of legacy pollutants (polychlorinated biphenyls, 

mercury, silver, and selenium) are a continuing problem in the estuary, with sediment samples 

passing toxicity tests only about 60 percent of the time (Department of Water Resources 2005, page 

3-9). 

Floodplains 

As delineated by FEMA, 100-year floodplains have been mapped along the streams bordering San 

Francisco Bay. They also have been mapped along many of the rivers that empty into the Bay, such 

as Coyote and Suisun Creeks, and along the Guadalupe, Sacramento, San Joaquin, and Merced 

Rivers and their tributaries. 

Surface Waters 

Major streams and surface waters in the study area in this region include San Francisco Bay. The 

Guadalupe, Pajaro, Sacramento, San Joaquin, and Merced Rivers and their tributaries all discharge 

into San Francisco Bay. The study area also includes Lake Merritt Tidal Channel, Quarry Lakes, 

extensive tidal flats and salt evaporating ponds in the South Bay, and the estuaries of Coyote Creek 

and Guadalupe River. Many of the streams and creeks in this region are considered impaired waters. 

Groundwater 

Relatively uniform, unconfined aquifers and associated water tables are expected in the Santa Clara 

Valley Basin (Niles Cone and Alameda East Bay Subbasins). Groundwater in this basin is routinely 

pumped for domestic purposes and is subject to long-term fluctuations in water levels due to 

overdraft and recharge conditions. Groundwater is generally considered shallow in 

recharge/discharge areas near San Francisco Bay. 

Central Valley Corridor

The Central Valley corridor includes the Central Valley from Chowchilla (Madera County) and Merced 

(Merced County) north through Modesto (Stanislaus County) to Stockton (San Joaquin County). The 

major geophysical feature traversed by this corridor is the Central Valley. The major watershed in 

this corridor is the San Joaquin River watershed. Elevation range for the Central Valley corridor 

ranges from 30 ft (9 m) to 250 ft to (76 m). 

As with the San Jose to Central Valley corridor, the Central Valley corridor falls within the San Joaquin 

River watershed. Six drainages make up the west side of the valley floor section of the San Joaquin 

River. From north to south, they are Del Puerto Creek, Orestimba Creek, Garzas Creek, Los Banos 

Creek, Mud Slough, and Salt Slough. Many of these tributaries are under the control of the Westside 

San Joaquin Valley Drainage Authority, and flows are dictated by the land use of the area, which is 

primarily agricultural. Summer water flows are entirely composed of agricultural return flows. 

Floodplains 

As delineated by FEMA, 100-year floodplains have been mapped along the Sacramento, San Joaquin, 

and Merced Rivers and their tributaries. 

Surface Waters 

Major streams and surface waters in the study area in this region include the San Joaquin, Tuolumne, 

Stanislaus, Chowchilla, and Merced Rivers. The Hetch Hetchy and California Aqueducts, Don Castro 

and San Luis Reservoirs, and O’Neill Forebay are also located in the study area in this corridor. Many 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.14 Hydrology and Water Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.14-13

of the streams and creeks in this corridor are considered impaired waters. In addition, there are a 

number of manmade canals and channels that crisscross the Central Valley. 

Groundwater 

Relatively uniform, unconfined aquifers and associated water tables are expected in the Central 

Valley groundwater basins to the east. The San Joaquin Valley groundwater basin encompasses this 

entire region, and the corridor impacts the following subbasins: Modesto, Eastern San Joaquin, 

Turlock, Merced, and Chowchilla. Groundwater in these basins is routinely pumped for domestic and 

agricultural purposes and is subject to long-term fluctuations in water levels due to overdraft and 

recharge conditions. Groundwater is generally considered shallow in recharge/discharge areas near 

the San Joaquin River and its tributaries in the Central Valley and in the area of the Sacramento-San 

Joaquin River Delta. 

3.14.3 Environmental Consequences 

A. NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE 

In addition to existing conditions, the No Project Alternative includes planned and programmed 

transportation improvements that would be constructed and operational by 2030. The potential 

impacts of the No Project Alternative on hydrologic resources and water quality are assumed to be 

limited because typical design and construction practices would need to meet permit conditions. 

However, some impacts on hydrologic resources would likely result from the implementation of the 

projects under the No Project Alternative, such as increased runoff from added lanes of paved 

surface and new columns for expanded bridges over rivers and streams. However, attempting to 

estimate these potential changes would be speculative. It is assumed that project-level 

environmental documents and permits would be prepared by project proponents for future projects 

that would affect hydrologic resources and water quality. These project-level documents would 

identify and analyze, and avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential impacts on hydrology and water 

quality to the extent feasible. 

B. HIGH-SPEED TRAIN ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES 

Potential impacts on hydrology and water resources that may result from the proposed HST 

Alignment Alternatives and station options include potential encroachment on or location in a 

floodplain, potential impacts on water quality, potential increased/decreased runoff and stormwater 

discharge due to changes in the amount of paved surfaces, potentially increased or decreased 

contribution of nonpoint-source contamination from automobiles, and potential impacts on 

groundwater from dewatering or reduction of groundwater recharge. 

The key findings of the hydrology and water quality analysis by corridor and alignment alternative are 

summarized below. For a summary of the hydrologic and water quality potential direct impacts, see 

Table 3.14-1. Potential indirect impacts are listed in Table 3.14-2. For complete data of all 

hydrological and water quality impacts by alignment segment, see Appendix 3.14-A. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.14 Hydro

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 3.14-1. Summary of Direct Water Resource Impacts for 

Alignment Alternatives and Station Location Option Comparisons 

Corridor 

Possible Alignments Alignment Alternative Floodplains (acres) Streams (linear feet) Lakes/ Bay (acres) Erosion (acres) Groun

(ac

San Francisco to San Jose: Caltrain 

1 of 1 San Francisco to 

Dumbarton 

49.3 1,178 0.0 8.5 2

1 of 1 Dumbarton to San 

Jose 

46.5 1,435 0.0 0.0 2

Station Location OptionsTransbay Transit Center 0 0 0 0 94th and King (Caltrain) 0 0 0 0 4Millbrae/SFO 0 0 0 0 1Redwood City (Caltrain) 0 0 0 0 Palo Alto (Caltrain) 0 0 0 0 2Oakland to San Jose: Niles/I-880

1 of 2 West Oakland to Niles 

Junction 

4.3 1,035 0.0 12.6 1

12th Street/City 

Center to Niles Junction 

4.3 1,035 0.0 12.6 1

1 of 2 Niles Junction to San 

Jose via Trimble 

36.4 1,013 0.7 22.5 1

Niles Junction to San Jose via I-880 

45.5 1,135 0.7 22.5 1

Station Location OptionsWest Oakland/7th Street 0 0 0 0 12th Street/City Center 0 0 0 0 Coliseum/Airport 1.61 1,683 0 0 1Union City (BART) 1.12 273 0 0 5
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.14 Hydro

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Corridor 

Possible Alignments Alignment Alternative Floodplains (acres) Streams (linear feet) Lakes/ Bay (acres) Erosion (acres) Groun

(ac

Fremont (Warm Springs) 0 0 0 0 8San Jose to Central Valley: Pacheco Pass

1 of 1 Pacheco 103.4 2,674 0.0 41.8 41 of 3 Henry Miller (UPRR 

Connection) 

126.4 6,697 2.3 22.2 3

Henry Miller (BNSF Connection)

130.4 6,266 2.5 22.2 3

GEA North 53.08 6,771 2.3 36.0 3

Station Location OptionsSan Jose (Diridon) 0 0 0 0 1Morgan Hill (Caltrain) 0 0 0 0 1Gilroy (Caltrain) 0 0 0 0 4East Bay to Central Valley: Altamont Pass 

1 of 4 I-680/ 580/UPRR 3.7 2,583 0.0 62.5 10

I-580/ UPRR 8.2 2,280 2.1 61.5 10Patterson Pass/UPRR 9.4 1,861 0.0 46.6 1UPRR 7.0 1,957 0.0 64.1 1

1 of 4 Tracy Downtown 

(BNSF Connection) 

41.4 6,228 2.3 15.8 32

Tracy ACE Station (BNSF Connection) 

48.9 7,390 3.0 17.2 3

Tracy ACE Station (UPRR Connection) 

29.3 5,433 2.1 17.2 20

Tracy Downtown (UPRR Connection) 

32.0 5,384 2.3 15.8 24

2 of 2 East Bay Connections 0.6 322 0.0 30.3 1
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.14 Hydro

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Corridor 

Possible Alignments Alignment Alternative Floodplains (acres) Streams (linear feet) Lakes/ Bay (acres) Erosion (acres) Groun

(ac

Station Location OptionsPleasanton (I-680/Bernal Rd) 0 0 0 0 1Pleasanton (BART) 2.4 438 0 0 1Livermore (Downtown) 0 0 0 0 1Livermore (I-580) 1.7 174 0 8.3 1Livermore (Greenville Road/UPRR) 0 0 0 0 1Livermore (Greenville Road/I-580) 0 0 0 8.2 1Tracy (Downtown) 0 0 0 0 1Tracy (ACE) 0 0 0 0 1San Francisco Bay Crossings 

1 of 2 Trans Bay Crossing – 

Transbay Transit Center 

0.0 0 36.5 0.0 

Trans Bay Crossing – 4th & King 

0.0 0 35.4 0.0 

1 of 6 Dumbarton (High 

Bridge) 

47.4 1,028 37.3 10.0 1

Dumbarton (Low Bridge) 

47.4 1,028 37.3 10.0 1

Dumbarton (Tube) 47.4 1,028 37.3 10.0 1Fremont Central Park (High Bridge) 

71.7 2,041 46.3 0.0 12

Fremont Central Park (Low Bridge) 

71.7 2,041 46.3 0.0 12

Fremont Central Park (Tube) 

71.7 2,041 46.3 0.0 12
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.14 Hydro

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Corridor 

Possible Alignments Alignment Alternative Floodplains (acres) Streams (linear feet) Lakes/ Bay (acres) Erosion (acres) Groun

(ac

Station Location OptionsUnion City (Shinn) 0 0 0 0 1Central Valley 1 of 6 BNSF – UPRR 183.5 8,291 1.5 0 5

 BNSF 191.1 8,398 1.6 0 58 UPRR N/S 123.4 7,547 0.0 0.0 60 BNSF Castle 158.2 6.965 1.6 0 58 UPRR – BNSF Castle 97.7 7,734 0.1 0.0 59 UPRR – BNSF 123.1 9,060 0.0 0.0 58

Station Location OptionsModesto (Downtown) 0 0 0 0 8Briggsmore (Amtrak) 0 0 0 0 1Merced (Downtown) 11.7 0 0 0 1Castle AFB 0 416 0 0 1
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.14 Hydro

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 3.14-2. Summary of Indirect Water Resource Impacts for 

Alignment Alternatives and Station Location Option Comparisons 

Corridor 

Possible Alignments Alignment Alternative Floodplains (acres) Streams (linear feet) Lakes/ Bay (acres) Erosion (acres) Ground

(acr

San Francisco to San Jose: Caltrain 

1 of 1 San Francisco to 

Dumbarton 

101.2 2,617 3.4 17.7 57

1 of 1 Dumbarton to 

San Jose 

74.2 2,649 0.0 0.0 51

Station Location OptionsTransbay Transit Center 0 0 0 0 124th and King (Caltrain) 0 0 0 0 48Millbrae/SFO 0.1 0 0 0 15Redwood City (Caltrain) 0 0 0 0 9Palo Alto (Caltrain) 0 0 0 0 27Oakland to San Jose: Niles/I880

1 of 2 West Oakland to 

Niles Junction 

9.5 8,828 0.0 25.4 32

12th Street/City 

Center to Niles Junction 

9.5 8,828 0.0 25.4 32

1 of 2 Niles Junction to 

San Jose via Trimble 

129.8 2,220 1.3 45.2 48

Niles Junction to San Jose via I880 

167.0 2,707 1.3 45.2 44
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.14 Hydro

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Corridor 

Possible Alignments Alignment Alternative Floodplains (acres) Streams (linear feet) Lakes/ Bay (acres) Erosion (acres) Ground

(acr

Station Location OptionsWest Oakland/7th Street 0 0 0 0 812th Street/City Center 0 0 0 0 7Coliseum/Airport 2.8 1,734 0 0 20Union City (BART) 1.4 831 0 0 63Fremont (Warm Springs) 0 0 0 0 91San Jose to Central Valley: Pacheco Pass

1 of 1 Pacheco 303.5 9,215 0.0 146.3 1,031 of 3 Henry Miller 

(UPRR Connection) 

469.5 44,458 10.0 88.9 1,41

Henry Miller (BNSF Connection)

487.3 43,420 10.6 88.9 1,46

GEA North 158.3 20,436 8.4 144.2 1,30

Station Location OptionsSan Jose (Diridon) 0 0 0 0 24Morgan Hill (Caltrain) 0 0 0 0 15Gilroy (Caltrain) 0 0 0 0 46East Bay to Central Valley: Altamont Pass 

1 of 4 I-680/ 580/UPRR 18.8 13,310 0.0 210.1 42

I-580/ UPRR 33.7 9,243 7.5 186.3 34Patterson Pass/UPRR 

20.6 6,253 0.0 197.8 31

UPRR 16.2 6,195 0.0 195.8 31
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.14 Hydro

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Corridor 

Possible Alignments Alignment Alternative Floodplains (acres) Streams (linear feet) Lakes/ Bay (acres) Erosion (acres) Ground

(acr

1 of 4 Tracy Downtown 

(BNSF Connection) 

136.0 19,257 7.6 63.5 1,16

Tracy ACE Station (BNSF Connection) 

154.5 24,468 13.0 70.0 1,13

Tracy ACE Station (UPRR Connection) 

76.8 13,161 9.2 70.0 62

Tracy Downtown (UPRR Connection) 

99.6 15,605 7.6 63.5 81

2 of 2 East Bay 

Connections 

2.3 1,805 0.0 37.4 75

Station Location OptionsPleasanton (I-680/Bernal Rd) 0 0 0 0 15Pleasanton (BART) 3.3 538 0 0 21Livermore (Downtown) 0 276 0 0 17Livermore (I-580) 2.7 0 0 11.7 23Livermore (Greenville Road/UPRR) 0 0 0 0 21Livermore (Greenville Road/I-580) 0 0 0 11.6 19Tracy (Downtown) 0 0 0 0 16Tracy (ACE) 0 0 0 0 20
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.14 Hydro

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Corridor 

Possible Alignments Alignment Alternative Floodplains (acres) Streams (linear feet) Lakes/ Bay (acres) Erosion (acres) Ground

(acr

San Francisco Bay Crossings 

1 of 2 Trans Bay 

Crossing – Transbay Transit Center 

0.0 0 235.5 0.0 0 

Trans Bay Crossing – 4th & 

King 

0.0 0 228.0 0.0 0 

1 of 6 Dumbarton (High 

Bridge) 

162.1 3,627 143.9 40.1 40

Dumbarton (Low Bridge) 

162.1 3,627 143.9 40.1 40

Dumbarton (Tube) 

162.1 3,627 143.9 40.1 40

Fremont Central Park (High Bridge) 

258.7 8,301 179.2 0.0 45

Fremont Central Park (Low Bridge) 

258.7 8,301 179.2 0.0 45

Fremont Central Park (Tube) 

258.7 8,301 179.2 0.0 45
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.14 Hydro

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Corridor 

Possible Alignments Alignment Alternative Floodplains (acres) Streams (linear feet) Lakes/ Bay (acres) Erosion (acres) Ground

(acr

Station Location OptionsUnion City (Shinn) 0 0 0 0 22Central Valley 1 of 6 BNSF–UPRR 669.5 31,632 6.3 0 2,10

 BNSF 759.2 32,594 6.7 0 2,21 UPRR N/S 422.7 41,122 0.0 0 2,12 BNSF Castle 628.8 30,371 6.7 0 2,22 UPRR–BNSF 

Castle 388.0 43,276 0.4 0 

2,24

 UPRR–BNSF 428.7 44,538 0.0 0 2,13

Station Location OptionsModesto (Downtown) 0 0 0 0 12Briggsmore (Amtrak) 0 0 0 0 18Merced (Downtown) 15.3 0 0 0 15Castle AFB 0 516 0 0 23
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.14 Hydrology and Water Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.14-23

San Francisco to San Jose Corridor

Alignment Alternatives 

San Francisco to Dumbarton Alignment Alternative 

This alignment alternative could potentially affect at least 16 named and unnamed water resources, 

including (i.e., not limited to) Oyster Point Channel, San Bruno Channel, San Bruno Canal, Colma 

Creek, Mills Creek, San Mateo Creek, and Pulgas Creek. 

This alignment alternative could directly impact 49.3 ac (19.95 ha) of areas identified as 100-year 

floodplains. In addition, 1,178 linear ft (359.1 m) of streams, rivers, and channels could be directly 

impacted. Surface water bodies are not present in the area of the alignment alternative and 

therefore would not be affected. Finally, the San Francisco to Dumbarton alignment alternative could 

directly impact 268 ac (108.46 ha) of groundwater and 8.5 ac (3.44 ha) of land that has potentially 

erosive conditions. (See Table 3.14-1.) 

This alignment alternative could indirectly impact 101.2 ac (40.96 ha) of areas identified as 100-year 

floodplains. In addition, 2,617 linear ft (797.7 m) of streams, rivers, and channels could be 

impacted. Finally, this alignment alternative could indirectly impact 579.2 ac (234.4 ha) of 

groundwater and 17.7 ac (7.16 ha) of land that has potentially erosive conditions (Table 3.14-2). 

The San Francisco to Dumbarton alignment alternative would traverse San Mateo Creek, which is 

identified by the State of California as a TMDL impaired water for the following pollutants: chlordane, 

DDT, dieldrin, dioxin compounds (including 2,3,7,8-TCDD), exotic species, furan compounds, 

mercury, PCBs, PCBs (Dioxin Like), selenium, and diazinon. The construction and operation of the 

HST is not a likely source of any of these contaminants; therefore, this alignment alternative is not 

expected to increase identified contaminants of this impaired water (Table 3.14-A-5 in Appendix 

3.14-A). 

Dumbarton to San Jose Alignment Alternative 

This alignment alternative would continue south, from Redwood City to San Jose. The alignment 

alternative could potentially affect at least nine named and unnamed water resources, including (i.e., 

not limited to) San Francisquito Creek, Matadero Creek, Barron Creek, Permenente Creek, Stevens 

Creek, Calabasas Creek, and Saratoga Creek. 

The Dumbarton to San Jose alignment alternative could directly impact 46.5 ac (18.82 ha) of 

floodplains. In addition, 1,435 linear ft (437.4 m) of streams, rivers, and channels could be directly 

impacted. Surface water bodies are not in the study area and therefore would not be impacted by 

this alignment alternative. Finally, the alignment alternative could directly impact 238.8 ac 

(96.64 ha) of groundwater. None of the land has potentially erosive conditions; therefore, erosion 

impacts would not occur (Table 3.14-1). 

The Dumbarton to San Jose alignment alternative could indirectly impact 74.2 ac (30.03 ha) of 

floodplain. In addition, 2,649 linear ft (807.4 m) of streams, rivers, and channels could be impacted. 

Surface water bodies are not in the study area and therefore would not be impacted. Finally, 517.91 

ac (209.59 ha) of groundwater could be indirectly impacted. None of the land has potentially erosive 

soil conditions; therefore, erosion impacts would not occur. (See Table 3.14-2) 

This alignment alternative would traverse TMDL impaired segments of the following six water 

resources: San Francisquito Creek, Matadero Creek, Stevens Creek, Permanente Creek, Calabasas 

Creek, and Saratoga Creek. Diazinon is identified as the impairment for these water resources. The 

construction and operation of the HST is not a likely source of these contaminants; therefore, the 

alignment alternative is not expected to increase the identified contaminants of waters in the study 

area. San Francisquito Creek is also impaired for sediment and siltation. The construction of the HST 

may affect sediment and siltation in San Francisquito Creek. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.14 Hydrology and Water Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.14-24

Station Location Options 

There are no floodplains, streams, surface water bodies, or potentially erosive soils within the vicinity 

of the stations in this corridor. The only differences relate to groundwater. Refer to Tables 3.14-1 

and 3.14-2. 

Transbay Transit Center 

The station location option could directly impact 9.1 ac (3.68 ha) of groundwater and indirectly 

impact 12.7 ac (5.14 ha). 

4

th and King (Caltrain) Station 

The station location option could directly impact 40.6 ac (16.43 ha) of groundwater and indirectly 

impact 48.8 ac (19.75 ha). 

Millbrae-SFO Station 

The station location option could directly impact 11 ac (4.45 ha) of groundwater and indirectly impact 

15.2 ac (6.15 ha). 

Redwood City (Caltrain) Station 

The station location option could directly impact 6.2 ac (2.51 ha) of groundwater and indirectly 

impact 9.5 ac (3.84 ha). 

Palo Alto (Caltrain) Station 

The station location option could directly impact 20.7 ac (8.38 ha) of groundwater and indirectly 

impact 27.4 ac (11.09 ha). 

Summary of Impacts 

As shown in Tables 3.14-1 and 3.14-2, the San Francisco to San Jose corridor does not include 

optional alignment alternatives. This corridor generally follows and is adjacent to the Caltrain 

corridor and minimizes impacts on water resources. At least 25 named and unnamed water 

resources in the area could be affected within this corridor. 

Direct Impacts 

The HST has the potential to directly impact 95.8 ac (38.77 ha) of 100-year floodplains, primarily 

along the segments south of SFO, in Palo Alto, and in Sunnyvale. Within this corridor, the 100-year 

floodplain is often confined by the embankments of the existing Caltrain or roadway facility. 

Although there are no surface water bodies in the direct path of the alignment alternatives, there is 

the potential to impact 2,613 linear ft (796.5 m) of streams, creeks, and channels. In addition, 506.8 

ac (205.1 ha) of groundwater basins could be affected. Given the developed and urban area in 

which the HST is proposed within this corridor, the change in impervious surfaces would be minimal 

and impacts on groundwater recharge would be low. This corridor would extend through 

approximately 8.5 ac (3.44 ha) of potentially erosive soil conditions between San Francisco and 

Millbrae near the Bay. (See Table 3.14-1.) 

Indirect Impacts 

During site grading and construction activities, areas of bare soil would likely be exposed to erosive 

forces. Bare soils are much more likely to erode than vegetated areas due to the lack of dispersion, 

infiltration, and retention created by covering vegetation. Construction activities involving soil 

disturbance, excavation, cutting/filling, stockpiling, and grading activities could result in increased 

erosion and sedimentation to surface waters. If precautions are not taken to contain contaminants, 

construction could produce contaminated stormwater runoff, a major contributor to the degradation 

of water quality. Hazardous materials associated with construction equipment could also adversely 

affect water quality if spilled or stored improperly. In addition, construction in areas of high 

groundwater could require dewatering, with subsequent discharge to surface waters. This process 

could result in the release of sediment or other contaminants to surface waters. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.14 Hydrology and Water Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.14-25

Construction near the bay or river, stream, and canal crossings has the potential to degrade water 

quality due to the direct exposure of surface waters to construction-related contaminants. Water 

quality impacts from construction activities could violate water quality standards, exceed contaminant 

loadings in impaired waters, provide additional sources of polluted runoff, or otherwise degrade 

water quality. Construction activities such as excavation, trenching, or tunneling that occur in areas 

of high groundwater could impact groundwater supplies. While construction activities would also 

likely occur within a 100-year floodplain, the potential to expose workers to a risk of loss, injury, or 

death if flooding were to occur during construction would be minimal.

The San Francisco to San Jose corridor has the potential to indirectly impact 175.77 ac (71.13 ha) of 

floodplains. Although there are no surface water bodies immediately adjacent to the alignment 

alternatives, there is the potential to impact 5,266 linear ft (1,605.1 m) of streams, creeks, and 

channels. Finally, 1,097.1 ac (444 ha) of groundwater and 17.7 ac (7.18 ha) of land with potentially 

erosive soil conditions could be indirectly impacted. (See Table 3.14-2.) 

TMDL 

The corridor traverses seven TMDL-impaired segments of water resources in the area. The 

construction and operation of the HST is an unlikely source of most of the contaminants that impair 

the water resources. The contaminants are generally chlorinated hydrocarbons, heavy metals, and 

organophosphate pesticides. However, San Francisquito Creek is impaired for sediment and siltation, 

and the construction of the Dumbarton to San Jose alignment alternative may affect the sediment/silt 

load in this drainage.

Oakland to San Jose Corridor

Alignment Alternatives 

West Oakland to Niles Junction Alignment Alternative 

This alignment alternative could potentially affect at least 13 named and unnamed water resources, 

including (i.e., not limited to) Arroyo Viejo, Lion Creek, San Leandro Creek, San Lorenzo Creek, and 

Alameda Creek. 

The West Oakland to Niles Junction alignment alternative could directly impact 4.3 ac (1.74 ha) of 

floodplains. In addition, it could directly impact 1,035 linear ft (315.5 m) of streams, rivers, and 

channels. Surface water bodies are not in the study area and therefore would not be directly 

affected. Finally, the alignment alternative could directly impact 133.2 ac (53.91 ha) of groundwater 

and 12.6 ac (5.1 ha) of land that has potentially erosive soil conditions. (See Table 3.14-1) 

This alignment alternative could indirectly impact 9.5 ac (3.84 ha) of floodplains. In addition, 8,828 

linear ft (2,690.8 m) of streams, rivers, and channels could be indirectly impacted. There are no 

surface water bodies in the study area, and therefore no impact would occur. Finally, the West 

Oakland to Niles Junction alignment alternative could indirectly impact 329.8 ac (133.47 ha) of 

groundwater and 25.4 ac (10.28 ha) of land that has potentially erosive conditions. (See Table 3.14-

2.) 

The alignment alternative would traverse TMDL impaired segments of the following three water 

resources: San Leandro Creek, San Lorenzo Creek, and Alameda Creek. These waters are impaired 

with diazinon. The construction and operation of the HST is not a likely source of these pollutants; 

therefore, the HST is not expected to increase the identified contaminants of these waters. 

12th Street/City Center to Niles Junction Alignment Alternative 

This alignment alternative could potentially affect the same 13 named and unnamed water resources 

as the West Oakland to Niles Junction alignment alternative. This alignment alternative would also 

have the same direct impacts on floodplains, streams and waters, and land with potentially erosive 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.14 Hydrology and Water Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.14-26

soil conditions. The direct impact of this alignment alternative on groundwater would be 132.1 ac 

(53.46 ha). (See Table 3.14-1.) 

This alignment alternative would also have the same indirect impacts on floodplains, streams and 

waters, and land with potentially erosive soil conditions as the West Oakland to Niles Junction 

alignment alternative. The indirect impact of this alignment alternative on groundwater would be 

326.1 ac (131.97 ha) of groundwater. (See Table 3.14-2.) 

The alignment alternative would traverse the same TMDL impaired segments of surface waters as the 

West Oakland to Niles Junction alignment alternative (San Leandro Creek, San Lorenzo Creek, and 

Alameda Creek). The construction and operation of the HST is not a likely source of diazinon; 

therefore, the HST is not expected to increase the identified contaminants of these waters. 

Niles Junction to San Jose via Trimble Alignment Alternative 

This alignment alternative could potentially affect eight named and unnamed water resources, 

including (i.e., not limited to) Mission Creek, Alameda Creek, the Lagoon/Elizabeth Lake, Penitencia 

Creek, and Mud Slough/Coyote Creek. 

This alignment alternative could directly impact 36.4 ac (14.73 ha) of floodplains. In addition, 1,013 

linear ft (308.8 m) of streams, rivers, and channels and 0.7 ac (0.28 ha) of surface water bodies 

could be impacted. The Niles Junction to San Jose via Trimble alignment alternative could also 

directly impact 143.2 ac (57.95 ha) of groundwater and 22.5 ac (9.11 ha) of land with potentially 

erosive soil conditions. (See Table 3.14-1.) 

The Niles Junction to San Jose via Trimble alignment alternative could indirectly impact 129.8 ac 

(52.53 ha) of floodplains. In addition, 2,220 linear ft (676.7 m) of streams, rivers, and channels and 

1.3 ac (0.53 ha) of surface water bodies could be impacted. This alignment alternative could also 

indirectly impact 484.7 ac (196.16 ha) of groundwater and 45.20 ac (18.29 ha) of land with 

potentially erosive soil conditions. (See Table 3.14-2.) 

The Niles Junction to San Jose via Trimble alignment alternative would traverse TMDL-impaired 

segments of three of the following surface water resources: Mission Creek, Mud Slough/Coyote 

Creek, and Guadalupe River/Creek. These waters are impaired for the following pollutants: diazinon 

and mercury. The construction and operation of the HST is not a likely source of these 

contaminants; therefore, the HST is not expected to increase the identified contaminants of these 

waters. Mission Creek is also impaired for ammonia, chlordane (sediment), dieldrin (sediment), 

hydrogen sulfide, lead (sediment), mercury (sediment), PAHs, PCBs, silver (sediment), and zinc 

(sediment). Construction and operation of the HST along this alignment alternative is not a likely 

source of these contaminants; however, sediment transport from construction may affect lead, 

mercury, silver, and zinc concentrations in Mission Creek. 

Niles Junction to San Jose via I-880 Alignment Alternative 

This alignment alternative could potentially affect the same eight named and unnamed water 

resources as the Niles Junction to San Jose via Trimble alignment alternative; however, this 

alignment alternative would also cross independent segments of Coyote Creek and Guadalupe River 

for a total of at least 10 water resources potentially affected. 

This alignment alternative could directly impact 45.5 ac (18.41 ha) of floodplains. In addition, 1,135 

linear ft (345.9 m) of streams, rivers, and channels and 0.7 ac (0.28 ha) of surface water bodies 

could be impacted. Finally, the Niles Junction to San Jose via I-880 alignment alternative could 

directly impact 134.5 ac (54.43 ha) of groundwater and 22.5 ac (9.11 ha) of land with potentially 

erosive soil conditions. (See Table 3.14-1.) 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.14 Hydrology and Water Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.14-27

This alignment alternative could indirectly impact 167 ac (67.58 ha) of floodplains. In addition, 2,707 

linear ft (825.1 m) of streams, rivers, and channels and 1.3 ac (0.53 ha) of surface waters bodies 

could be affected. The Niles Junction to San Jose via I-880 alignment alternative could also indirectly 

impact 445.9 ac (180.46 ha) of groundwater and 45.20 ac (18.29 ha) of land with potentially erosive 

soil conditions. (See Table 3.14-2.) 

The alignment alternative would traverse TMDL-impaired segments of the same three water 

resources as the Trimble alignment alternative (Mission Creek, Coyote Creek, and Guadalupe 

Creek/River). Construction and operation of the HST is not a likely source of the impaired 

contaminants for these waters; however, sediment transport from construction along this alignment 

alternative may affect lead, mercury, silver, and zinc concentrations in Mission Creek. 

Station Location Options 

There are no floodplains, streams, surface water bodies, or potentially erosive soils within the vicinity 

of the West Oakland/7th Street, 12th Street/City Center, and Freemont (Warm Springs) station 

location options. 

West Oakland/7th Street Station 

The station location option could directly impact 5.1 ac (2.06 ha) of groundwater and indirectly 

impact 8 ac (3.24 ha). 

12th Street/City Center Station 

The station location option could directly impact 4.8 ac (1.94 ha) of groundwater and indirectly 

impact 7.9 ac (3.2 ha). 

Coliseum/Airport Station 

There are 1.6 ac (0.65 ha) of floodplains and 1,683 linear ft (513 m) of streams, rivers, and channels 

that could be directly impacted by this station location option. Also, 15.1 ac (6.11 ha) of 

groundwater could be directly impacted. Indirect impacts could occur to 2.8 ac (1.13 ha) of 

floodplains and 1,734 linear ft (528.5 m) of streams, rivers, and channels. In addition, 20.1 ac 

(8.13 ha) of groundwater could also be indirectly impacted. There are no surface water bodies or 

land with potentially erosive soil conditions near this station location option. 

Union City (BART) Station 

There are 1.1 ac (0.45 ha) of floodplains and 273 linear ft (83.2 m) of streams, rivers, and channels 

that could be directly impacted by this station. Also, 56 ac (22.66 ha) of groundwater could be 

directly impacted. Indirect impacts could occur to 1.4 ac (0.57 ha) of floodplains and 831 linear ft 

(253.3 m) of streams, rivers, and channels. In addition, 63.8 ac (25.82 ha) of groundwater could 

also be indirectly impacted. There are no surface water bodies or land with potentially erosive soil 

conditions near this station location option. 

Freemont (Warm Springs) Station 

The station could directly impact 81.3 ac (32.90 ha) of groundwater and indirectly impact 91.8 ac 

(37.15 ha). 

Summary of Impacts 

As shown in Tables 3.14-1 and 3.14-2, a combination of alignment alternatives would be required 

within this corridor to complete the connection from Oakland to San Jose. The discussion below 

compares the potential direct and indirect impacts of the West Oakland to Niles Junction alignment 

alternative to the 12th Street/City Center to Niles Junction alignment alternative and the Niles 

Junction to San Jose via Trimble alignment alternative to the Niles Junction to San Jose via I-880 

alignment alternative. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.14 Hydrology and Water Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.14-28

The West Oakland to Niles Junction and or Niles Junction to San Jose via I-880 alignment alternatives 

could potentially affect 21 and 23 named and unnamed water resources, respectively. The 12th

Street/City Center to Niles Junction and the Niles Junction to San Jose via Trimble alignment 

alternatives could affect the same water resources, respectively. The Niles Junction to San Jose via 

I-880 alignment alternative could also affect different segments of Coyote Creek and Guadalupe River 

not affected by the Niles Junction to San Jose via Trimble alignment alternative. 

Direct Impacts 

As shown in Table 3.14-1, the West Oakland to Niles Junction alignment alternative would have 

slightly more impact on groundwater as compared to the 12th Street/City Center to Niles Junction 

alignment alternative. Both of these alignment alternatives include tunnels that would avoid impacts 

on the floodplain, and aerial structures that would minimize impact on the floodplain and streams, 

creeks, and channels. The tunnels in downtown Oakland, either on the West Oakland or 12th

Street/City Center to Niles Junction alignment alternatives, would have the potential to encounter 

groundwater and would require dewatering as part of construction and possibly during operation. 

The West Oakland to Niles Junction alignment alternative extends under the tributary that extends 

from Lake Merritt to the Bay. Other areas along these alignment alternatives are highly developed 

and the change in impervious surfaces would be minimal, and the impacts on groundwater recharge 

would be low. Both of these alignment alternatives would extend through approximately 12.6 ac (5.1 

ha) of potentially erosive soil conditions near Niles Boulevard. Overall, the direct impacts of these 

two alignment alternatives on water resources are essentially the same. 

The Niles Junction to San Jose via Trimble alignment alternative would have the potential to affect 

approximately 9 ac (3.64 ha) more groundwater than the Niles Junction to San Jose via I-880 

alignment alternative, primarily due to the longer length of the Trimble Road option to San Jose. The 

Niles Junction to San Jose via Trimble alignment alternative would likely encounter groundwater in 

the South Bay area even though almost 3 miles (4.8 km) of this alignment alternative would be in 

tunnel along Trimble Road. Dewatering would likely be required during construction and potentially 

during operation of the HST where the tunnel would encounter groundwater. The tunnel for this 

alignment alternative would also extend under the Guadalupe River and Coyote Creek, whereas the 

Niles Junction to San Jose via I-880 alignment alternative would extend over these on aerial 

structure. Both alignment alternatives may also encounter groundwater where column support 

footings would be required for aerial structures. Because most of the Niles Junction to San Jose via 

Trimble alignment alternative would be on aerial structure or in tunnel (along Trimble Road), impacts 

on 100-year floodplains and streams in the South Bay area would be minimized. Impacts on the 

floodplain from aerial structures would be limited to column footings. The Niles Junction to San Jose 

via I-880 alignment alternative extends through additional floodplain areas near the San Jose 

International Airport, but the potential for impacts would be minimized by using aerial structures for 

the HST. The amount of erosive soil effects would also be the same for these two alignment 

alternatives. Overall, the Niles Junction to San Jose via Trimble alignment alternative would have the 

least potential for direct impacts to floodplains and streams, but it has a higher potential to encounter 

groundwater due to tunneling along Trimble Road. 

Indirect Impacts 

Potential indirect impacts from construction within this corridor would be similar to those discussed 

for the San Francisco to San Jose corridor. 

Comparison of the indirect impacts for the West Oakland to Niles Junction and 12th Street/City Center 

to Niles Junction alignment alternatives is also consistent with what was described above for the 

direct impacts except for the potential amount of impact that could occur. Overall, the indirect 

impacts of these two alignment alternatives on water resources are essentially the same (see Table 

3.14-2). 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.14 Hydrology and Water Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.14-29

Comparison of the indirect impacts for the Niles Junction to San Jose via Trimble and Niles Junction 

to San Jose via I-880 alignment alternatives is also consistent with what was described above for the 

direct impacts except for the potential amount of impact that could occur. Overall, the Niles Junction 

to San Jose via Trimble alignment alternative would have the least potential for indirect impacts to 

floodplains and streams, but it has a higher potential to encounter groundwater due to tunneling 

along Trimble Road. (Table 3.14-2) 

TMDL 

All the alignment alternatives would traverse the same TMDL-impaired sections of water resources. 

The impaired sections are impaired for the organophosphate pesticide, diazinon. The construction 

and operation of the HST is not expected to be a likely source of diazinon; therefore, impacts would 

not occur to the impaired sections. However, the Niles Junction to San Jose via Trimble and Niles 

Junction to San Jose via I-880 alignment alternatives would both traverse one impaired section of 

Mission Creek with sediment contamination. Construction of either of these two alignment 

alternatives could cause sediment transport that could affect the concentrations of sediment 

contamination. 

San Jose to Central Valley Corridor

Alignment Alternatives 

Pacheco Alignment Alternative 

This alignment alternative could potentially affect at least 13 unnamed and named water resources, 

including (i.e., not limited to) Los Gatos Creek, Guadalupe River, Little Llagas Creek, Llagas Creek, 

Miller Slough, Pajaro River, Pacheco Creek, and Tequisquita Slough. 

The Pacheco alignment alternative could directly impact 103.4 ac (41.84 ha) of floodplains. In 

addition, 2,674 linear ft (815 m) of streams, rivers, and channels could be affected. There are no 

surface water bodies that would be affected. Finally, this alignment alternative could impact 451 ac 

(182.52 ha) of groundwater and 41.8 ac (16.92 ha) of land with potentially erosive soil conditions. 

(See Table 3.14-1.) 

This alignment alternative could indirectly impact 303.5 ac (122.83 ha) of floodplains. In addition, 

9,215 linear ft of (2,808.7 m) streams, rivers, and channels could be affected. There are no surface 

water bodies that would be affected. The Pacheco alignment alternative could indirectly impact 

1,031.1 ac (417.29 ha) of groundwater and 146.3 ac (59.21 ha) of land that may have erosive soil 

conditions. (See Table 3.14-2.) 

The alignment alternative would traverse TMDL-impaired segments of four surface water resources: 

Los Gatos Creek, Guadalupe Creek/River, Llagas Creek, and Pajaro River. These waters are impaired 

with the following pollutants: diazinon, mercury, boron, fecal coliform, chloride, low dissolved oxygen, 

nitrate, and pH. The construction and operation of the HST is not a likely source of these 

contaminants; therefore, the alignment alternative is not expected to increase the identified 

contaminants of these waters. Llagas Creek is also impaired for total dissolved solids (TDS), and any 

sediment increase associated with construction and operation of the alignment alternative could 

increase the levels of TDS in the creek. The alignment alternative would be downstream of 

Tequisquita Slough, a tributary to Pajaro River, which is impaired for fecal coliform. The construction 

and operation of the HST along this alignment alternative is not a likely source of this contaminant; 

therefore, the HST is not expected to affect fecal coliform levels in the Pajaro River. 

Henry Miller (UPRR Connection) Alignment Alternative 

This alignment alternative could potentially affect at least 44 unnamed and named water resources, 

including (i.e., not limited to) Tule Lake, California Aqueduct, San Luis Creek, Mendota Canal, Main 

Canal, Los Banos Creek, Los Banos Wildlife Area, San Luis Wasteway, Mud Slough, Delta Canal, Santa 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.14 Hydrology and Water Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.14-30

Rita Slough/Salt Slough, San Joaquin River, Mariposa Slough, Chowchilla River, Ash Slough, and 

Berenda Slough. 

This alignment alternative could directly impact 126.4 ac (51.15 ha) of floodplains. In addition, 6,697 

linear ft (2,041.2 m) of streams, rivers, and channels and 2.3 ac (0.93 ha) of surface water bodies 

could be affected. The Henry Miller (UPRR Connection) alignment alternative could also directly 

impact 355.4 ac (143.83 ha) of groundwater and 22.2 ac (8.98 ha) of land with potentially erosive 

soil conditions. (See Table 3.14-1.) 

This alignment alternative could indirectly impact 469.5 ac (190.01 ha) of floodplains. In addition, 

44,458 linear ft (13,550.8 m) of streams, rivers, and channels and 10.0 ac (4.05 ha) of surface water 

bodies could be indirectly impacted. Finally, this alignment alternative could indirectly impact 1,412.5 

ac (571.64 ha) of groundwater and 88.9 ac (35.98 ha) of land with potentially erosive soil conditions. 

(See Table 3.14-2.) 

The alignment alternative would traverse TMDL-impaired segments of three surface water resources: 

Mud Slough, San Joaquin River (portion from the Mendota Pool to Bear Creek), and Santa Rita 

Slough/Salt Slough (portion upstream from the confluence with the San Joaquin River). These 

waters are impaired with the following pollutants: boron, electrical conductivity, DDT, unknown 

toxicity, Group A pesticides (aldrin, dieldrin, chlordane, endrin, heptachlor, heptachlor expoxide, 

hexachlorocyclohexane—including lindane—endosulfan, and toxaphene), diazinon, and chlorpyrifos. 

Construction and operation of the HST is not a likely source of these contaminants; however, the 

Central Valley has a long history of heavy pesticide use and depending on the binding properties of 

the pesticides to soil and water, sediment runoff from the construction could potentially mobilize and 

release additional pesticides into these water resources. 

Henry Miller (BNSF Connection) Alignment Alternative 

This alignment alternative could potentially affect the same 44 named and unnamed streams listed 

above in the Henry Miller (UPRR Connection) alignment alternative. 

This alignment alternative could directly impact 130.4 ac (52.77 ha) of floodplains. In addition, 6,266 

linear ft (1,909.9 m) of streams, rivers, and channels and 2.5 ac (1.01 ha) of surface water bodies 

could be affected. The Henry Miller (BNSF Connection) alignment alternative could also directly 

impact 366.9 ac (148.48 ha) of groundwater and 22.2 ac (8.96 ha) of land with potentially erosive 

soil conditions. (See Table 3.14-1.) 

This alignment alternative could indirectly impact 487.3 ac (197.21 ha) of floodplains. In addition, 

43,420 linear ft (13,234.4 m) of streams, rivers, and channels and 10.6 ac (4.29 ha) of surface water 

bodies could be indirectly affected. This alignment alternative could also indirectly impact 1,468.3 ac 

(594.22 ha) of groundwater and 88.9 ac (35.98 ha) of land with potentially erosive soil conditions. 

(See Table 3.14-2.) 

The Henry Miller (BNSF Connection) alignment alternative would traverse the same TMDL-impaired 

segments of the three surface water resources identified by the Henry Miller (UPRR Connection) 

alignment alternative (Mud Slough, San Joaquin River, and Santa Rita Slough/Salt Slough). 

Construction and operation of the HST is not a likely source of the contaminants affecting these 

waters; however, the Central Valley has a long history of heavy pesticide us and depending on the 

binding properties of the pesticides to soil and water, sediment runoff from the construction could 

potentially mobilize and release additional pesticides into these water resources. 

GEA North Alignment Alternative 

The GEA North alignment alternative could potentially affect at least 44 unnamed and named water 

resources, including (i.e., not limited to) California Aqueduct, Mendota Canal, Garzas Creek, Sullivan 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.14 Hydrology and Water Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.14-31

Extension, Duck Ponds, Mud Slough, San Joaquin River, Cottonwood Creek, Los Banos Creek, 

Livingston Canal, and the Merced River. 

This alignment alternative could directly impact 53.1 ac (21.48 ha) of floodplains. In addition, 6,771 

linear ft (2,063.8 m) of streams, rivers, and channels and 2.3 ac (0.93 ha) of surface water bodies 

could be affected. Finally, the GEA North alignment alternative could directly impact 340.3 ac 

(137.72 ha) of groundwater and 36 ac (14.57 ha) of land with potentially erosive soil conditions. 

(See Table 3.14-1.) 

This alignment alternative could indirectly impact 158.3 ac (64.04 ha) of floodplains. In addition, 

20,436 linear ft (6,228.9 m) of streams, rivers, and channels and 8.4 ac (3.4 ha) of surface water 

bodies could be indirectly affected. This alignment alternative could also indirectly impact 1,304.4 ac 

(527.89 ha) of groundwater and 144.2 ac (58.36 ha) of land with potentially erosive soil conditions. 

(See Table 3.14-2.) 

The GEA North alignment alternative would cross the San Joaquin River (portion from Bear Creek to 

Mud Slough), which is impaired for the following pollutants: boron, electrical conductivity, DDT, 

unknown toxicity, Group A pesticides (aldrin, dieldrin, chlordane, endrin, heptachlor, heptachlor 

expoxide, hexachlorocyclohexane—including lindane—endosulfan, and toxaphene), diazinon, and 

chlorpyrifos. This alignment alternative would also cross the Merced River (portion from McSwain 

Reservoir to San Joaquin River), which is impaired for the following pollutants: chlorphrifos, diazinon, 

Group A pesticides (including: aldrin, dieldrin, chlordane, endrin, heptachlor, heptachlor expoxide, 

hexachlorocyclohexane—including lindane—endosulfan, and toxaphene), and mercury. Construction 

and operation of the HST is not a likely source of these contaminants; however, the Central Valley 

has a long history of heavy pesticide use and depending on the binding properties of the pesticides to 

soil and water, sediment runoff from the construction could potentially mobilize and release 

additional pesticides into these water resources. 

Station Location Options 

There are no floodplains, streams, surface water bodies, or potentially erosive soils within the vicinity 

of the station location options within this corridor. 

San Jose (Diridon) Station 

The station location option could directly impact 18.8 ac (7.61 ha) of groundwater and indirectly 

impact 24.6 ac (9.96 ha). 

Morgan Hill (Caltrain) Station 

The station location option could directly impact 11 ac (4.45 ha) of groundwater and indirectly impact 

15.6 ac (6.31 ha). 

Gilroy (Caltrain) Station 

The station location option could directly impact 40.1 ac (16.23 ha) of groundwater and indirectly 

impact 46.7 ac (18.9 ha). 

Summary of Impacts 

As shown in Tables 3.14-1 and 3.14-2, any combination of alignment alternatives within this corridor 

would have to include the Pacheco alignment alternative to complete the connection from San Jose 

to the Central Valley. 

The Pacheco alignment alternative could affect approximately 13 water resources. The Henry Miller 

alignment alternatives could affect 44 named and unnamed water resources, and the GEA North 

alignment alternative could also affect approximately 44 water resources. Many of the water 

resources identified along both of the Henry Miller alignment alternatives and GEA North alignment 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.14 Hydrology and Water Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.14-32

alternative are manmade canals and ditches used to transport agricultural waters. It should be noted 

that the USACE or the CDFG do not consider all canals in the Central Valley to be jurisdictional 

waters. Certain canals that intercept natural drainages/streams and divert the water to another 

water body such as a reservoir or river can be considered jurisdictional. The USACE makes those 

determinations on a case-by-case basis. This would occur as part of subsequent project level 

analysis and in close coordination with the USACE and CDFG. 

Direct Impacts 

The Pacheco alignment alternative generally follows and is adjacent to the Caltrain corridor from San 

Jose to Gilroy. From San Jose to Gilroy, this alignment alternative would be constructed at-grade and 

on aerial structures. From Gilroy across the Diablo Range, the alignment alternative would include a 

combination of at-grade, aerial structure, and tunnel. The alignment alternative crosses several 

major watercourses for a total of approximately 2,674 linear ft (815 m) including the Guadalupe 

River, Pajaro River, and several branches of Pacheco Creek. The alignment alternative extends atgrade or on aerial structure through approximately 103.4 ac (41.85 ha) of 100-year floodplains, with 

the largest area of floodplain being crossed at-grade between Gilroy and the Diablo Range. The HST 

would be constructed with culverts under the tracks to convey anticipated storm flows and to 

minimize ponding. Across the Diablo Range, the amount of 100-year floodplain is minimal and 

confined to canyons. Impacts on the floodplain from aerial structures would be limited to column 

footings. The potential to encounter groundwater from San Jose to Gilroy would be limited to where 

column support footings would be required for aerial structures. The change in impervious surfaces 

within this same portion would be minimal because the alignment alternative would be adjacent to 

the existing Caltrain and roadway corridors, which are already developed. South of Gilroy, the 

alignment alternative extends through agricultural areas before crossing the Diablo Range on a new 

track and result in a slight increase in impervious surfaces; however, the HST would consist of 

permeable track-fill rather than impervious pavement resulting in a low runoff potential. The 

potential to encounter groundwater along this portion would be limited to the area between Gilroy 

and the Diablo Range and the impacts on groundwater recharge would be low. The potential for 

erosion due to runoff would primarily be limited to locations of erosive soil conditions within the 

Diablo Range to the San Luis Reservoir where tunnels and earthwork would be required. 

The Henry Miller and GEA North alignment alternatives would connect to the Pacheco alignment 

alternative north of the San Luis Reservoir. The two Henry Miller alignment alternatives would share 

most of the same alignment with the exception of the connections to the UPRR and BNSF. The 

Henry Miller (BNSF Connection) alignment alternative would have slightly more impact on the 100-

year floodplain, water bodies, and groundwater as compared to the Henry Miller (UPRR Connection) 

alignment alternative. The alignment alternative is primarily at-grade and adjacent to Henry Miller 

Road, which also extends across the floodplain. The HST would be constructed to minimize 

additional impacts on the floodplain by constructing culverts under the track to convey anticipated 

storm flows and to minimize ponding. The GEA North alignment alternative would affect up to 77 ac 

(31.16 ha) less floodplain than either of the Henry Miller alignment alternatives. The GEA North 

alignment alternative would cross the 100-year floodplain in the area of Mud Slough and the San 

Joaquin River as well as at the two Merced River crossings where the alignment alternative connects 

with the BNSF and UPRR. Most of the track for the GEA North would be constructed on embankment 

and would be designed to convey anticipated storm flows and to minimize ponding. Overall, the GEA 

North alignment alternative would have the least impact on the 100-year floodplain. 

While the Henry Miller and GEA North alignment alternatives would each have similar impacts on 

streams and canals, the Henry Miller (BNSF Connection) alternative alignment would impact between 

24 and 500 linear ft less than the other two alignment alternatives. Because the Henry Miller (UPRR 

Connection) alignment alternative would re-cross the Chowchilla River and Ash Slough with the north 

connection to UPRR, the overall amount of impact on streams would be 430 linear ft (131.1 m) more 

than the Henry Miller (BNSF Connection). Subsequent project level analysis and coordination with 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.14 Hydrology and Water Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.14-33

the USACE and CDFG would be required to determine which canals would be considered 

jurisdictional. At this program level of analysis, the Henry Miller (BNSF Connection) alignment 

alternative would have the least impact on streams and canals. 

Both of the Henry Miller alignment alternatives would have 13 ac (5.26 ha) less erosive soil effects 

than the GEA North alignment alternative, where additional erosive soils exist in the area between I-5 

and San Luis Reservoir. The potential to encounter groundwater along each of these three options 

would be limited to the area east of I-5 and the impacts on groundwater recharge would be low 

because of the overall footprint of the HST. The potential for erosion due to runoff would primarily 

be limited to locations of erosive soil conditions at the edge of the Diablo Range where tunnels and 

earthwork would be required. 

Indirect Impacts 

Potential indirect impacts from construction would be similar to those discussed for the San Francisco 

to San Jose corridor. As shown in Table 3.14-2, the indirect impacts associated with the Pacheco 

alignment alternative generally follow what was described above for the direct impacts except for the 

potential amount of impacts that could occur. 

Comparison of the indirect impacts for the Henry Miller and GEA North alignment alternatives is also 

consistent with what was described above except for the potential amount of impact. One exception 

is that the GEA North alignment alternative would indirectly impact substantially fewer streams or 

canals than either of the Henry Miller alignment alternatives. The GEA North alignment alternative 

would indirectly impact up to 24,000 less linear ft (7,315.2 m) of streams, rivers, and canals. As 

shown on Figure 3.14-3, there are fewer streams and canals north and south of the GEA North 

alignment alternative compared to the Henry Miller alignment alternatives. 

TMDL 

While the Pacheco alignment alternative would traverse a number of TMDL impaired water resources, 

the construction and operation of the HST may only impact one of these impaired resources, Llagas 

Creek, for TDS. Both Henry Miller alignment alternatives would traverse the same three impaired 

water resources: Mud Slough, San Joaquin River (portion from the Mendota Pool to Bear Creek) and 

Santa Rita Slough/Salt Slough (portion upstream from the confluence with the San Joaquin River). 

Although the construction and operation of the HST along these two alignment alternatives is not a 

likely source of the many contaminants identified as impairing the water resources, depending on the 

binding properties of the pesticides to soil and water, sediment runoff from construction could 

potentially mobilize and release additional pesticides into these water resources. Finally, the GEA 

North alignment alternative would be likely to impact the fewest impaired water resources: the San 

Joaquin River (segment from Bear Creek to Mud Slough) and Merced River, Lower (segment from 

McSwain Reservoir to San Joaquin River). However, as with the Henry Miller alignment alternatives, 

the sediment runoff from the construction of the HST along the GEA North alignment alternative 

could potentially mobilize and release additional pesticides into the San Joaquin and Merced Rivers. 

East Bay to Central Valley Corridor

Alignment Alternatives 

Altamont Pass Options (Niles Junction to Altamont) 

I-680/580/UPRR Alignment Alternative 

This alignment alternative could potentially affect at least 17 unnamed and named water resources, 

including (i.e., not limited to) Alameda Creek, Laurel Creek, Gold Creek, Arroyo Valle, Arroyo De La 

Laguna, Tassajara Creek, Cottonwood Creek, Arroyo Las Positas, Arroyo Seco, and South Bay 

Aqueduct. 

This alignment alternative could directly impact 3.7 ac (1.5 ha) of floodplains. In addition, 2,583 

linear ft (787.3 m) of streams, rivers, and channels could be impacted. Surface water bodies are not 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.14 Hydrology and Water Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.14-34

in the study area, and therefore impacts would not occur. Finally, this alignment alternative could 

directly impact 105.6 ac (42.74 ha) of groundwater and 62.5 ac (25.29 ha) of land with potentially 

erosive soil conditions. (See Table 3.14-1.) 

The I-680/580/UPRR alignment alternative could indirectly impact 18.8 ac (7.61 ha) of floodplains. 

In addition, 13,310 linear ft (4,056.9 m) of streams, rivers, and channels could be indirectly affected. 

Surface water bodies are not in the study area of the alignment alternative, and therefore impacts 

would not occur. Finally, it could indirectly impact 424.1 ac (171.63 ha) of groundwater and 210.1 ac 

(85.03 ha) of land with potentially erosive soil conditions. (See Table 3.14-2.) 

The I-680/580/UPRR alignment alternative would traverse TMDL-impaired segments of three surface 

water resources: Alameda Creek, Arroyo De La Laguna, and Arroyo Las Positas. These waters are 

impaired with diazinon. The construction and operation of the HST is not a likely source of this 

contaminant; therefore, this alignment alternative is not expected to increase the diazinon levels in 

these waters. 

I-580/UPRR Alignment Alternative 

This alignment alternative could potentially affect 15 unnamed and named water resources, including 

(i.e., not limited to) Arroyo Valle, Arroyo De La Laguna, Cottonwood Creek, Arroyo Las Positas, 

Arroyo Seco, Arroyo Gravel Pits/Arroyo Mocho, South Bay Aqueduct, and Patterson Run (canal). 

This alignment alternative could directly impact 8.2 ac (3.32 ha) of floodplains. In addition, 2,280 

linear ft (694.9 m) of streams, rivers, and channels and 2.1 ac (0.85 ha) of surface water bodies 

could be affected. The I-580/UPRR alignment alternative could also directly impact 103.8 ac 

(42.01 ha) of groundwater and 61.5 ac (24.89 ha) of land with potentially erosive soil conditions. 

(See Table 3.14-1.) 

The I-580/UPRR alignment alternative could indirectly impact 33.7 ac (13.64 ha) of floodplains. In 

addition, 9,243 linear ft (2,817.3 m) of streams, rivers, and channels and 7.5 ac (3.04 ha) of surface 

water bodies could be indirectly impacted. Finally, this alignment alternative could indirectly impact 

342 ac (138.41 ha) of groundwater and 186.3 ac (75.4 ha) of land with potentially erosive soil 

conditions. (See Table 3.14-2.) 

The I-580/UPRR alignment alternative would traverse TMDL-impaired segments of five surface water 

resources including Alameda Creek, Arroyo De La Laguna, Arroyo Del Valle, Arroyo Positas, and 

Arroyo Mocho. These waters are impaired with diazinon. The construction and operation of the HST 

is not a likely source of this contaminant; therefore, the HST along this alignment alternative is not 

expected to increase diazinon levels in these waters. 

Patterson Pass/UPRR Alignment Alternative 

This alignment alternative could potentially affect nine unnamed and named water resources, 

including (i.e., not limited to) Arroyo Valle, Arroyo De La Laguna, Arroyo Las Positas, Arroyo Seco, 

Arroyo Gravel Pits/Arroyo Mocho, and South Bay Aqueduct and Patterson Run (canal). 

This alignment alternative could directly impact 9.4 ac (3.8 ha) of floodplains. In addition, 1,861 

linear ft (567.2 m) of streams, rivers, and channels could be impacted. Surface water bodies would 

not be affected. The Patterson Pass/UPRR alignment alternative could directly impact 152.2 ac 

(61.6 ha) of groundwater and 46.6 ac (18.86 ha) of land with potentially erosive soil conditions. (See 

Table 3.14-1.) 

This alignment alternative could indirectly impact 20.6 ac (8.34 ha) of floodplain. In addition, 6,253 

linear ft (1,905.9 m) of streams, rivers, and channels and 0.03 ac (0.01 ha) of surface water bodies 

could be indirectly affected. The Patterson Pass/UPRR alignment alternative could indirectly impact 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.14 Hydrology and Water Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.14-35

314.8 ac (127.4 ha) of groundwater and 197.8 ac (80.05 ha) of land with potentially erosive soil 

conditions. (See Table 3.14-2.) 

The Patterson Pass/UPRR alignment alternative would traverse TMDL-impaired segments of four of 

the five surface water resources that the I-580/UPRR alignment alternative may traverse, with the 

exception of Arroyo Positas. These waters are impaired with diazinon. The construction and 

operation of the HST is not a likely source of this contaminant; therefore, the HST along this 

alignment is not expected to increase diazinon levels in these waters. 

UPRR Alignment Alternative 

This alignment alternative could potentially affect 12 unnamed and named water resources, including 

(i.e., not limited to) Alameda Creek, Arroyo Valle, Arroyo De La Laguna, Arroyo Las Positas, Arroyo 

Seco, Arroyo Gravel Pits/Arroyo Mocho, South Bay Aqueduct, and Patterson Run (canal). 

The UPRR alignment alternative could directly impact 7 ac (2.83 ha) of floodplains. In addition, 

1,957 linear ft (596.5 m) of streams, rivers, and channels could be affected. Surface water bodies 

are not in the area; therefore, impacts would not occur. This alignment alternative could also directly 

impact 152.1 ac (61.55 ha) of groundwater and 64.1 ac (25.94 ha) of land with potentially erosive 

soil conditions. (See Table 3.14-1.) 

This alignment alternative could indirectly impact 16.2 ac (6.56 ha) of floodplain. In addition, 6,195 

linear ft (1,888.2 m) of streams, rivers, and channels and 0.03 ac (0.01 ha) of surface water bodies 

could be indirectly affected. The UPRR alignment alternative could indirectly impact 318.7 ac 

(128.98 ha) of groundwater and 195.8 ac (79.24 ha) of land with potentially erosive soil conditions. 

(See Table 3.14-2.) 

The UPRR alignment alternative would traverse TMDL-impaired segments of five surface water 

resources: Alameda Creek, Arroyo De La Laguna, Arroyo Del Valle, Arroyo Positas, and Arroyo Mocho. 

These waters are impaired with diazinon. The construction and operation of the HST is not a likely 

source of this contaminant; therefore, the HST along this alignment is not expected to increase 

diazinon levels in these waters. 

Altamont Pass Options 

Tracy Downtown (BNSF Connection) Alignment Alternative 

The Tracy Downtown (BNSF Connection) alignment alternative could potentially affect at least 14 

unnamed and named water resources, including (i.e., not limited to) California Aqueduct, Delta 

Mendota Canal, Upper Main Canal, San Joaquin River, Paradise Cut, Tom Paine Slough, Lone Tree 

Creek, and Avena Drain. 

This alignment alternative could directly impact 41.4 ac (16.75 ha) of floodplains. In addition, 6,228 

linear ft (1,898.3 m) of streams, rivers, and channels and 2.3 ac (0.93 ha) of surface water bodies 

could be impacted. Finally, it could directly impact 329.3 ac (133.27 ha) of groundwater and 15.8 ac 

(6.39 ha) of land with potentially erosive soil conditions. (See Table 3.14-1.) 

The Tracy Downtown (BNSF Connection) alignment alternative could indirectly impact 136.00 ac 

(55.04 ha) of floodplains. In addition, 19,257 linear ft (5,869.5 m) of streams, rivers, and channels 

and 7.6 ac (3.08 ha) of surface water bodies could be indirectly affected. This alignment alternative 

could indirectly impact 1,165.4 ac (471.64 ha) of groundwater and 63.5 ac (25.7 ha) of land with 

potentially erosive soil conditions. (See Table 3.14-2.) 

The Tracy Downtown (BNSF Connection) alignment alternative would be downstream of the San 

Joaquin River (segment from Stanislaus River to Delta Boundary), identified as TMDL impaired for the 

following pollutants: boron, electrical conductivity, DDT, unknown toxicity, and Group A pesticides 

(aldrin, dieldrin, chlordane, endrin, heptachlor, heptachlor expoxide, hexachlorocyclohexane—
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.14 Hydrology and Water Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.14-36

including lindane—endosulfan, and toxaphene), diazinon, and chlorpyrifos. Construction and 

operation of the HST is not a likely source of these contaminants and would not impact this impaired 

portion of the San Joaquin River, which is upstream of the alignment alternative and any potential 

contaminants from the construction or operation of the HST would travel downstream and not affect 

the impaired river segment. The alignment alternative would also traverse Lone Tree Creek, 

identified as TMDL-impaired for the following pollutants: ammonia, BOD, and electrical conductivity. 

Construction and operation of the HST is not a likely source of these contaminants; therefore, the 

alignment alternative is not expected to increase the identified contaminants in Lone Tree Creek. 

Tracy ACE Station (BNSF Connection) Alignment Alternative 

The Tracy ACE Station (BNSF Connection) alignment alternative could potentially affect at least 14 

unnamed and named water resources, including (i.e., not limited to) California Aqueduct, Delta 

Mendota Canal, Upper Main Canal, San Joaquin River, Paradise Cut, Tom Paine Slough, Lone Tree 

Creek, and Avena Drain. 

This alignment alternative could directly impact 48.9 ac (19.79 ha) of floodplains. In addition, 7,390 

linear ft (2,252.5 m) of streams, rivers, and channels and 3.0 ac (1.21 ha) of surface water bodies 

could be impacted. The Tracy ACE Station (BNSF Connection) alignment alternative could directly 

impact 331.9 ac (134.32 ha) of groundwater and 17.2 ac (6.96 ha) of land with potentially erosive 

soil conditions. (See Table 3.14-1.) 

The Tracy ACE Station (BNSF Connection) alignment alternative could indirectly impact 154.5 ac 

(62.53 ha) of floodplains. In addition, 23,468 linear ft (7,457.8 m) of streams, rivers, and channels 

and 13 ac (5.26 ha) of surface water bodies could be indirectly affected. This alignment alternative 

could indirectly impact 1,137 ac (460.14 ha) of groundwater and 70.0 ac (28.33 ha) of land with 

potentially erosive soil conditions. (See Table 3.14-2.) 

The Tracy ACE Station (BNSF Connection) alignment alternative would be downstream of the San 

Joaquin River (portion from Stanislaus River to Delta Boundary), identified as TMDL impaired for the 

following pollutants: boron, electrical conductivity, DDT, unknown toxicity, and Group A pesticides 

(aldrin, dieldrin, chlordane, endrin, heptachlor, heptachlor expoxide, hexachlorocyclohexane—

including lindane—endosulfan, and toxaphene), diazinon, and chlorpyrifos. Construction and 

operation of the HST is not a likely source of these contaminants and would not impact this impaired 

segment of the San Joaquin River because the segment is upstream of the alignment alternative. 

Any potential contaminants from the construction or operation of the HST would travel downstream, 

not upstream, and therefore would not affect the impaired river segment. The alignment alternative 

would also traverse Lone Tree Creek, identified as TMDL impaired for the following pollutants: 

ammonia, BOD, and electrical conductivity. Construction and operation of the HST is not a likely 

source of these contaminants; therefore, the HST along this alignment alternative is not expected to 

increase the identified contaminants in Lone Tree Creek.

Tracy ACE Station (UPRR Connection) Alignment Alternative 

The Tracy ACE Station (UPRR Connection) alignment alternative could potentially affect at least 9 of 

the water resources identified in the Tracy ACE Station BNSF alignment alternative, excluding Lone 

Tree Creek, Avena Drain, and the Main Drain Canal. 

This alignment alternative could directly impact 29.3 ac (11.86 ha) of floodplains. In addition, 5,433 

linear ft (1,656 m) of streams, rivers, and channels and 2.1 ac (0.85 ha) of surface water bodies 

could be affected. The Tracy ACE Station (UPRR Connection) alignment alternative could also directly 

impact 205.2 ac (83.04 ha) of groundwater and 17.2 ac (6.96 ha) of land with potentially erosive soil 

conditions. (See Table 3.14-1.) 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.14 Hydrology and Water Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.14-37

The Tracy ACE Station (UPRR Connection) alignment alternative could indirectly impact 76.8 ac 

(31.08 ha) of floodplains. In addition, 13,161 linear ft (4,011.5 m) of streams, rivers, and channels 

and 9.2 ac (3.72 ha) of surface water bodies could be indirectly impacted. This alignment alternative 

could indirectly impact 629.2 ac (254.64 ha) of groundwater and 70 ac (28.33 ha) of land with 

potentially erosive soil conditions. (See Table 3.14-2.) 

The Tracy ACE Station (UPRR Connection) alignment alternative would be downstream of the San 

Joaquin River (portion from Stanislaus River to Delta Boundary), identified as TMDL impaired for the 

following pollutants: boron, electrical conductivity, DDT, unknown toxicity, and Group A pesticides 

(aldrin, dieldrin, chlordane, endrin, heptachlor, heptachlor expoxide, hexachlorocyclohexane—

including lindane—endosulfan, and toxaphene), diazinon, and chlorpyrifos. Construction and 

operation of the HST is not a likely source of these contaminants, and would not impact this impaired 

segment of the San Joaquin River because the segment is upstream of the alignment alternative. 

Any potential contaminants from the construction or operation of the HST would travel downstream, 

not upstream, and therefore would not affect the impaired river segment. 

Tracy Downtown (UPRR Connection) Alignment Alternative 

The Tracy Downtown (UPRR Connection) alignment alternative could potentially affect at least 9 of 

the water resources identified in the Tracy Downtown (BNSF Connection) alignment alternative, 

excluding Lone Tree Creek, Avena Drain, and the Main Drain Canal. 

This alignment alternative could directly impact 32 ac (12.95 ha) of floodplains. In addition, 5,484 

linear ft (1,641 m) of streams, rivers, and channels and 2.3 ac (0.93 ha) of surface water bodies 

could be impacted. The Tracy Downtown (UPRR Connection) alignment alternative could also directly 

impact 241.2 ac (97.61 ha) of groundwater and 15.8 ac (6.39 ha) of land with potentially erosive soil 

conditions. (See Table 3.14-1.) 

The Tracy Downtown (UPRR Connection) alignment alternative could indirectly impact 99.6 ac 

(40.31 ha) of floodplains. In addition, 15,605 linear ft (4,756.4 m) of streams, rivers, and channels 

and 7.6 ac (3.08 ha) of surface water bodies could be indirectly impacted. This alignment alternative 

could indirectly impact 812.6 ac (328.86 ha) of groundwater and 63.5 ac (25.7 ha) of land with 

potentially erosive soil conditions. (See Table 3.14-2.) 

The Tracy Downtown (UPRR Connection) alignment alternative would be downstream of the San 

Joaquin River (portion from Stanislaus River to Delta Boundary), identified as TMDL impaired for the 

following pollutants: boron, electrical conductivity, DDT, unknown toxicity, and Group A pesticides 

(aldrin, dieldrin, chlordane, endrin, heptachlor, heptachlor expoxide, hexachlorocyclohexane—

including lindane—endosulfan, and toxaphene), diazinon, and chlorpyrifos. Construction and 

operation of the HST is not a likely source of these contaminants, and would not impact this impaired 

segment of the San Joaquin River because the affected portion is upstream of the alignment 

alternative. Any potential contaminants from the construction or operation of the HST would travel 

downstream and not affect the impaired river. 

East Bay Connections 

The East Bay Connections alignment alternative would directly impact approximately 0.6 ac (0.24 ha) 

of floodplains and 322 linear ft (98.1 m) of streams, 30.3 ac (12.26 ha) of land with potentially 

erosive soil conditions, and 18.9 ac (7.65 ha) of groundwater. Indirect impacts include up to 2.3 ac 

(0.93 ha) of floodplains, 1,805 linear ft (550.2 m) of streams, 37.4 ac (15.14 ha) of land with 

potentially erosive soil conditions, and 75.8 ac (30.68 ha) of groundwater. 

Station Location Options 

There are no floodplains, streams, surface water bodies, or potentially erosive soils within the vicinity 

of the Pleasanton (I-680/Bernal) Station, Livermore (Downtown), Tracy (Downtown), and Tracy 

(ACE) station location options. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.14 Hydrology and Water Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.14-38

Pleasanton (I-680/Bernal) Station 

This station location option could directly impact 10.9 ac (4.41 ha) and indirectly impact 15.6 ac 

(6.31 ha) of groundwater. 

Pleasanton (BART) Station 

There are 2.4 ac (0.97 ha) of floodplains and 438 linear ft (133.5 m) of streams, rivers, and canals 

that could be directly impacted by this station location option. The station location option also has 

the potential to impact 16.2 ac (6.56 ha) of groundwater. Indirect impacts could occur to 3.3 ac 

(1.34 ha) of floodplains and 538 linear ft (164 m) of streams, rivers, and channels. In addition, 21.1 

ac (8.54 ha) of groundwater could also be indirectly impacted. There are no surface water bodies or 

land with potentially erosive soil conditions near this station location option. 

Livermore (Downtown) Station 

This station location option could directly impact 13.3 ac (5.38 ha) of groundwater. It could also 

indirectly impact 276 linear ft (84.1 m) of streams, rivers, and channels and 17.2 ac (6.96 ha) of 

groundwater. 

Livermore (I-580) Station 

This station location option would not affect surface water bodies. The station location option could 

directly impact 1.7 ac (0.69 ha) of floodplains. In addition, 174 linear ft (53 m) of streams, rivers, 

and channels could be affected. Finally, 15.9 ac (6.43 ha) of groundwater and 8.3 ac (3.36 ha) of 

land with potentially erosive soil conditions could be directly impacted. The station location option 

could indirectly impact 2.7 ac (1.09 ha) of floodplains. In addition, 23.1 ac (9.35 ha) of groundwater 

as well as 11.7 ac (4.73 ha) of land with potentially erosive soil conditions could be indirectly 

affected. 

Livermore (Greenville Road/UPRR) Station 

This station location option could directly impact 12.9 ac (5.22 ha) and indirectly impact 21.9 ac 

(8.87 ha) of groundwater. 

Livermore (Greenville Road/I-580) 

There are no floodplains, streams, and surface water bodies near this station location option. The 

station could directly impact 13.8 ac (5.59 ha) of groundwater as well as 8.2 ac (3.33 ha) of land with 

potentially erosive conditions. In addition, the station could indirectly impact 19.8 ac (8.01 ha) of 

groundwater and 11.6 ac (4.69 ha) of land with potentially erosive conditions. 

Tracy (Downtown) Station 

This station location option could directly impact 11.8 ac (4.78 ha) and indirectly impact 16.3 ac 

(6.6 ha) of groundwater. 

Tracy (ACE) Station 

This station location option could directly impact 15.0 ac (6.07 ha) and indirectly impact 20.3 ac 

(8.22 ha) of groundwater. 

Summary of Impacts 

As shown in Tables 3.14-1 and 3.14-2, a combination of alignment alternatives would be required 

within this corridor. Any combination of alignment alternatives within this corridor would have to 

include the East Bay Connections alignment alternative to complete the connection from the East Bay 

to the Central Valley. The discussion below compares the potential direct and indirect impacts of two 

sets of options. The Altamont Pass Options (Niles Junction to County Line) include four alignment 

alternatives that extend from Niles Junction to the Alameda County line. The Altamont Pass Options 

(County Line to Central Valley) also include four alignment alternatives that extend through Tracy to 

the Central Valley Corridor. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.14 Hydrology and Water Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.14-39

Altamont Pass Options (Niles Canyon to County Line) 

The I-680/I-580/UPRR alignment alternative could potentially affect the most water resources (17) 

when compared with the other alignment alternatives. Nine of these water resources are also 

potentially affected by the I-580/UPRR, Patterson Pass/UPRR, and UPRR alignment alternatives. 

Direct Impacts 

As shown in Table 3.14-1, the Patterson Pass/UPRR alignment alternative would potentially impact 

the most area within the 100-year floodplain but the least amount of streams. This alignment 

alternative would have up to 5.6 more ac (2.27 ha) of floodplain impacts, primarily in the area of 

Arroyo Moche between Pleasanton and Livermore. This alignment alternative would be on aerial 

structure through most of the areas within the 100-year floodplain and would and not impede storm 

flows. The I-680/580/UPRR alignment alternative would have the least amount of impact on 

floodplains and also be on aerial structure, but would cross several watercourses for a total of 

approximately 2,583 linear ft (787.3m), including South San Ramon Creek, Laurel Creek, Arroyo de la 

Laguna, Arroyo Las Positas, and Patterson Run Canal. This alignment alternative would cross all but 

nine of the watercourses on aerial structure and would span the watercourse channels and 

embankments. While there are less floodplains and streams in the path of the I-580/UPRR and UPRR 

alignment alternatives compared to the Patterson Pass/UPRR and I-680/580/UPRR alignment 

alternatives, respectively, the I-580/UPRR alignment alternative would have the potential to impact 

more area of floodplain because it would be constructed at-grade through the Arroyo Gravel Pits 

southeast of the Livermore Municipal Airport. The I-580/UPRR alignment alternative would also 

potentially impact approximately 2.1 ac (0.85 ha) of the water-filled gravel pits. The UPRR alignment 

alternative would pass adjacent to the gravel pits but on an aerial structure with limited impact. The 

UPRR alignment alternative would also cross fewer watercourses than either the I-680/580/UPRR or 

I-580/UPRR alignment alternatives but have a greater potential impact because 13 of the 

watercourses would be crossed at-grade rather than spanned by aerial structure. Overall, the I680/580/UPRR alignment alternative would have the least potential impact on floodplains, and the 

Patterson Pass/UPRR alignment alternative would have the least potential impact on streams. Where 

there is the potential to impact floodplains, alignment alternatives that are either at-grade or on 

embankments would be constructed with culverts sized appropriately to convey anticipated storm 

flows and to minimize ponding. 

The Patterson Pass/UPRR alignment alternative would have up to 18 ac (7.28 ha) less of erosive soil 

effects than the other alignment alternatives where additional erosive soils exist in the Altamont Pass 

area. There would be a small increase in the amount of impervious surfaces in areas where the 

alignment alternatives would not be along existing transportation facilities or in developed areas, 

such as through the Altamont Pass or Patterson Pass; however, the HST would consist of permeable 

track-fill rather than impervious pavement resulting in a low runoff potential. The Patterson 

Pass/UPRR and UPRR alignment alternatives have the potential to encounter more groundwater east 

of Livermore than the other two alignment alternatives, but in these areas, much of the alignment 

alternative would be at-grade and the potential to encounter groundwater would be limited. For all 

of the alignment alternatives, there is the potential to encounter groundwater where column support 

footings for aerial structures would be required. Each of the alignment alternatives would have the 

potential to encounter groundwater as a result of tunneling under Alameda Creek, near the City of 

Freemont city limits and would require dewatering as part of construction and possibly during 

operation. Impacts on groundwater recharge would be low for all of the alignment alternatives due 

to the use of aerial structure for much of the length of the alignment alternatives and also due to the 

overall footprint of the HST. The potential for erosion due to runoff would primarily be limited to 

locations of erosive soil conditions through the Altamont Pass and Patterson Pass where tunnels and 

earthwork would be required. Overall, the Patterson Pass/UPRR alignment alternative would have 

the least potential to be affected by erosive soils, and the I-680/580/UPRR and I-580/UPRR 

alignment alternatives would have the least potential impact on groundwater. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.14 Hydrology and Water Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.14-40

Indirect Impacts 

Potential indirect impacts from construction within this corridor would be similar to those discussed 

above for the San Francisco to San Jose Corridor. As shown in Table 3.14-2, the I-580/UPRR 

alignment alternative would potentially indirectly impact up to 17 more ac (6.88 ha) of floodplains 

and 7.45 more ac (3.01 ha) of surface waters than the other alignment alternatives between Niles 

Junction and the county line. The I-680/580/UPRR alignment alternative could indirectly impact up 

to 7,500 more ft (2,286 m) of streams and canals and have the highest potential to encounter 

erosive soil conditions and groundwater basins. The UPRR alignment alternative would have the 

least potential to indirectly impact 100-year floodplains and watercourses. Because of location 

through the Altamont Pass, the I-580/UPRR alignment alternative would have slightly less potential to 

encounter erosive soils compared to the other alignment alternatives. The Patterson Pass/UPRR and 

UPRR alignment alternatives would have the least potential indirect impact on groundwater. 

TMDLs 

The alignment alternatives between Niles Junction and the Altamont county line would all traverse 

many of the same impaired water resources; however, the I-580/UPRR and the UPRR alignment 

alternatives would traverse five impaired water resources. The I-580/UPRR and UPRR alignment 

alternatives would traverse the following TMDL impaired surface water resources: Alameda Creek, 

Arroyo De La Laguna, Arroyo Del Valle, Arroyo Positas, and Arroyo Mocho. These waters are 

impaired with diazinon. The construction and operation of the HST is not a likely source of these 

contaminants; therefore, the HST along these alignment alternatives is not expected to increase 

diazinon levels in these waters. 

Altamont Pass Options (County Line to Central Valley) 

The Tracy Downtown (BNSF Connection) and Tracy ACE Station (BNSF Connection) alignment 

alternatives could each affect 14 water resources, many the same. The Tracy Downtown (UPRR 

Connection) and Tracy ACE Station (UPRR Connection) alignment alternatives could affect the same 9 

water resources, fewer than either the Tracy Downtown (BNSF Connection) or Tracy ACE Station 

(BNSF Connection) alignment alternatives. All of the alignment alternatives within this set of options 

cross the California Aqueduct, Delta-Mendota Aqueduct, and the San Joaquin River. 

Direct Impacts 

As shown in Table 3.14-1, the Tracy ACE Station (BNSF Connection) alignment alternative would 

potentially impact the most area within the 100-year floodplain, the most number of streams and 

canals, and the most area of surface waters. This alignment alternative is also the longest of the 

four alignment alternatives. This alignment alternative would have up to 7.5 more ac (3.04 ha) of 

floodplain impacts primarily in the area east of Manteca. All of the alignment alternatives would have 

substantial floodplain impacts around the San Joaquin River, but these alignments would also be 

adjacent to existing railroad corridors. The alignment alternatives would be at-grade or on 

embankment through most of the areas within the 100-year floodplain. The Tracy ACE Station 

(UPRR Connection) alignment alternative would have the least amount of impact on floodplains. 

Where there is the potential to impact floodplains, alignment alternatives that are either at-grade or 

on embankments would be constructed with culverts sized appropriately to convey anticipated storm 

flows and to minimize ponding. The Tracy Downtown (UPRR Connection) alignment alternative 

would have the least potential impact on watercourses. 

Each of the alignment alternatives within this set of options would be affected by potentially erosive 

soils where the alignment alternatives extend east of the Altamont Pass and Patterson Pass. The 

Tracy ACE Station (BNSF Connection) and Tracy ACE Station (UPRR Connection) alignment 

alternatives would encounter up to 1.4 ac (0.57 ha) more of erosive soils than the other two 

alignment alternatives. There would be an increase in the amount of impervious surfaces in areas 

where the alignment alternatives would not be along existing transportation facilities or in developed 

areas, such as through the Altamont Pass or Patterson Pass. Both the Tracy Downtown (BNSF 

Connection) and Tracy ACE Station (BNSF Connection) alignment alternatives would have the 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.14 Hydrology and Water Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.14-41

potential to encounter more groundwater than the other two alignment alternatives, primarily due to 

the longer length of the alignments to the BNSF. The additional alignment length of the Tracy 

Downtown (UPRR Connection) and Tracy ACE Station (UPRR Connection) alignment alternatives 

would primarily be at-grade and the potential to encounter groundwater would be limited. For all of 

the alignment alternatives, there is the potential to encounter groundwater where column support 

footings for aerial structures would be required, such as through portions of Tracy, Lathrop, and 

Manteca. Impacts on groundwater recharge would be low to moderate for all of the alignment 

alternatives due to the overall footprint of the HST alignments. The potential for erosion due to runoff would primarily be limited to locations of erosive soil conditions around the Altamont Pass and 

Patterson Pass where some earthwork would be required. Overall, the Tracy Downtown (BNSF 

Connection) and Tracy Downtown (UPRR Connection) alignment alternatives would have the least 

potential to be affected by erosive soils, and the Tracy ACE Station (UPRR Connection) alignment 

alternative would have the least potential impact on groundwater. 

Indirect Impacts 

Potential indirect impacts from construction within this corridor would be similar to those discussed 

above for the San Francisco to San Jose Corridor. As shown in Table 3.14-2, the Tracy ACE Station 

(BNSF Connection) alignment alternative would potentially have substantially higher indirect impacts 

than the other alignment alternatives between the county line and the Central Valley. This alignment 

alternative would affect up to 55 more acres (22.6 ha) of 100-year floodplains, 4,800 more linear ft 

(1,463 m) of watercourses, 5 more acres (2.02 ha) of water bodies such as lakes, and encounter 6.5 

ac (2.63 ha) more of erosive soils compared to the other alignment alternatives. The Tracy ACE 

Station (UPRR Connection) alignment alternative would have substantially less potential to have 

indirect impacts on floodplains and watercourses, and encounter the least amount of groundwater. 

TMDLs 

All of the alignment alternatives would all cross the San Joaquin River downstream of a TMDL 

impaired portion; therefore, any potential contaminants from the construction or operation of the 

HST would travel downstream and would not affect the impaired river segment. The Tracy ACE 

Station (BNSF Connection) and the Tracy Downtown (BNSF Connection) alignment alternatives would 

also traverse an impaired portion of Lone Tree Creek. Construction and operation of the HST is not 

expected to increase the contaminants identified within Lone Tree Creek. 

East Bay Connections 

Two segments make up the East Bay Connections alignment alternative: the north segment (Niles to 

Union City – Niles Wye [E] to Niles Wye [N]) and south segment (Niles to Fremont – Niles Wye [E] to 

Niles Wye [S]). The south segment would be the longer of the two segments and would therefore 

have the potential to have greater impacts. The north segment of the East Bay Connections 

alignment alternative would potentially impact 0.17 ac (0.07 ha) of the Alameda Creek floodplain and 

the southern segment would impact 0.4 ac (0.16 ha) of the floodplain of several intermittent streams. 

Both the north and south connection segments would encounter potentially erosive soil conditions in 

the area where they would connect with the alignment alternatives between Niles Junction and the 

Altamont county line). Both segments would be constructed on cut and fill or at-grade and would 

have minimal impacts on groundwater or groundwater recharge. The East Bay Connections 

alignment alternative would not impact any streams identified as TMDL impaired. 

San Francisco Bay Crossings Corridor

Alignment Alternatives 

Trans Bay Crossing – Transbay Transit Center and Trans Bay Crossing – 4th & King 

The alignment alternatives in this corridor would extend from the Oakland Inner Harbor to the city of 

San Francisco, crossing San Francisco Bay. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.14 Hydrology and Water Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.14-42

There are no floodplains, streams, rivers or channels, groundwater, or soils with potentially erosive 

soil conditions within the vicinity of the transbay tube crossings; therefore, direct impacts would not 

occur. The transbay crossing at the Transbay Transit Center could directly impact 36.5 ac (14.77 ha) 

of the San Francisco Bay and indirectly impact 235.5 ac (95.31 ha). The transbay crossing at 4th and 

King could directly impact 35.4 ac (14.33 ha) of the San Francisco Bay and indirectly impact 228 ac 

(92.27 ha). 

The only TMDL impaired water resources that the Trans Bay Crossing alignment alternatives could 

traverse are central San Francisco Bay and the Oakland Inner Harbor. Central San Francisco Bay is 

identified as being impaired for the following pollutants: chlordane, DDT, didieldrin, dioxin 

compounds (including 2,3,7,8-TCDD), exotic species, furan compounds, mercury, PCBs, PCBs (dioxinlike), and selenium. The Oakland Inner Harbor is impaired for the following pollutants: chlordane, 

chlordane (sediment), copper (sediment), DDT, dieldrin, dieldrin (sediment), dioxin compounds, 

exotic species, furan compounds, lead (sediment), mercury, mercury (sediment) PAHs (sediment), 

PCBs, PCBs (dioxin-like), PCBs (sediment), and selenium. Construction of these alignment 

alternatives is likely to disrupt Bay sediment and may disrupt any contaminants trapped in the 

sediment. 

Dumbarton (High Bridge, Low Bridge, or Tube) Alignment Alternative 

The high bridge, low bridge, or tube alignment alternatives could all potentially affect the same 

unnamed and named water resources, including (i.e., not limited to) tidal flats, South San Francisco 

Bay, Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct, Newark Slough and Salt Evaporating Ponds, and the Alameda Creek 

Quarries. 

The high bridge, low bridge, or tube alternatives would all directly impact the same water resources. 

Direct impacts could include 47.4 ac (19.17 ha) of floodplains and 37.3 ac (15.10 ha) of surface 

water bodies. The alignment alternatives would cross 1,028 linear ft (313.3 m) of streams and 

canals including Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct and Newark Slough. In addition, there could be 133.7 ac 

(54.12 ha) of groundwater and 10 ac (4.03 ha) of potentially erosive soils directly affected. (See 

Table 3.14-1.) 

The high bridge, low bridge, or tube alternatives could all indirectly impact the same water resources. 

Indirect impacts could include 162.1 ac (65.58 ha) of floodplains, as well as 143.9 ac (58.24 ha) of 

surface waters and 3,627 linear ft (1,105.5 m) of streams, rivers, or channels. There could be 405.9 

ac (164.27 ha) of groundwater potentially indirectly impacted by the high bridge, low bridge, or tube 

alignment alternatives. Finally, 40.1 ac (16.24 ha) of land with potentially erosive soils could be 

indirectly impacted (Table 3.14-2). 

The two bridge alignment alternatives and the tube alignment alternative would traverse south San 

Francisco Bay. The Bay is identified as being TMDL impaired for the following pollutants: chlordane, 

DDT, dieldrin, dioxin compounds, exotic species, furan compounds, mercury, PCBS, dioxin-like PCBs, 

and selenium. The construction of the bridge and tube alignment alternatives might disrupt any 

pollutants trapped in the sediment of south San Francisco Bay. The operation of the bridge would 

not be a likely source of any of the pollutants. 

Fremont Central Park (High Bridge, Low Bridge, or Tube) Alignment Alternative 

The high bridge, low bridge, or tube alignment alternatives would all cross the same unnamed and 

named water resources, including (i.e., not limited to) tidal flats, south San Francisco Bay, Hetch 

Hetchy, Newark Slough, Salt Evaporation Ponds, the Lagoon/Lake Elizabeth, and Mowry Slough/Mud 

Slough/Salt Evaporating Ponds. 

The high bridge, low bridge, or tube options could all directly affect the same water resources. Direct 

impacts could include 71.7 ac (29.02 ha) of floodplains as well as 46.3 ac (18.74 ha) of surface water 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.14 Hydrology and Water Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.14-43

bodies and 2,041 linear ft (622.1 m) of streams, rivers, or channels. In addition, 127.7 ac (51.66 ha) 

of groundwater would be directly impacted. Finally, there are no potentially erosive soils in the area 

of these alignment alternatives. (Table 3.14-1.) 

The high bridge, low bridge, or tube alternatives could all indirectly impact the same water resources. 

Indirect impacts could include 258.7 ac (104.69 ha) of floodplains, as well as 179.2 ac (72.52 ha) of 

surface water bodies and 8,301 linear ft (2,530.1 m) of streams, rivers, or channels. In addition, 

450.6 ac (182.34 ha) of groundwater could be indirectly impacted. Finally, there are no potentially 

erosive soils in the area of these alignment alternatives. (Table 3.14-2.) 

The two bridge alignment alternatives and the tube alignment alternative would traverse south San 

Francisco Bay. The Bay is identified as being TMDL impaired for the following pollutants: chlordane, 

DDT, dieldrin, dioxin compounds, exotic species, furan compounds, mercury, PCBS, dioxin-like PCBs, 

and selenium. The construction of these alignment alternatives might disrupt any pollutants trapped 

in the sediment of south San Francisco Bay. The operation of the bridge or tunnel alignment 

alternatives would not be a likely source of any of the pollutants. 

Station Location Options 

Union City (Shinn) Station 

The station could directly impact 17.79 ac (7.20 ha) of groundwater and indirectly impact 22.92 ac 

(9.28 ha). 

Summary of Impacts 

There are no floodplains, streams, groundwater, or land with potentially erosive conditions related to 

any of the Trans Bay Crossing alignment alternatives; therefore, direct and indirect impacts would 

not occur. The Trans Bay Crossing — 4th and King alignment alternative would have slightly less 

impacts to water resources than the Transbay Transit Center alignment alternative due primarily to 

the length of the alignment alternative. 

Potential indirect impacts from construction within this corridor would be similar to those discussed 

above for the San Francisco to San Jose corridor. Construction of the transbay tube for both of these 

alignment alternatives would potentially have significant impacts on the Bay. In addition to the 

USACE Section 404, RWQCB Section 401, and CDFG 1600 permits that may be required, coordination 

would be required with the USACE under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and the California 

Coastal Commission to ensure project compliance with the California Coastal Act. 

Generally, the various Dumbarton alignment alternatives could directly and indirectly impact fewer 

water resources than the Freemont Central Park alignment alternatives due primarily to the length of 

the alignment alternatives. The Dumbarton alignment alternatives impact less floodplains and fewer 

surface water bodies than the Freemont Central Park alignment alternatives; however, they would 

directly and indirectly impact slightly more acres of groundwater and land with potentially erosive soil 

conditions. Erosive soil conditions are found east of Mission Boulevard in Fremont. The Freemont 

Central Park alignment alternative would include a tunnel portion east of Freemont Boulevard and 

under Freemont Central Park Lake and several streams and would likely require dewatering as part of 

construction and possibly during operation. There is the potential to encounter groundwater where 

column support footings for aerial structures would be required such as through portions of Newark 

and Fremont. In addition to the USACE Section 404, RWQCB Section 401, and CDFG 1600 permits 

that may be required, coordination would be required with the USACE under Section 10 of the Rivers 

and Harbors Act and the California Coastal Commission to ensure project compliance with the 

California Coastal Act. Overall, the Dumbarton alignment alternatives would have lesser impacts on 

water resources as compared to the Freemont Central Park alignment alternatives. Construction of 

the tube for both of these alignment alternatives would potentially have significant impacts on the 

bay. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.14 Hydrology and Water Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.14-44

The Trans Bay Crossing alignment alternatives would cross central San Francisco Bay and the Inner 

Oakland Harbor, potentially impacting any contaminated sediment during construction. The 

Dumbarton and Freemont Park Central alignment alternatives would cross south San Francisco Bay, 

which also has contaminated sediment. Construction of any bridge or tube alternative across south 

San Francisco Bay has the potential to disrupt contaminated sediment. 

Central Valley Corridor

Alignment Alternatives 

BNSF–UPRR Alignment Alternative 

This alignment alternative could potentially affect least 33 unnamed and named water resources, 

including (i.e., not limited to) Mormon Slough/Stockton Diverting Canal; Duck Creek; Littlejohns 

Creek; Avena Drain; Lone Tree Creek; Main District Canal; Stanislaus River; Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct; 

Lateral Numbers 6, 3, 2, and 1; Tuolumne River; Upper Lateral Numbers 2 1⁄2 and 3; Merced River; 

North and South Bloom Laterals; Main Ash Lateral; Black Rascal Creek/Hesse Lateral/Medowbrook 

Lateral; Farmdale Lateral; Miles Creek; Owens Creek; North Slough/Mariposa Creek; El Nido; 

Deadman Creek; Dutchman Creek; Chowchilla River; Ash Slough and Bypass; and the Berenda 

Slough. 

The BNSF–UPRR alignment alternative could directly impact 183.5 ac (74.26 ha) of floodplains. In 

addition, 8,291 linear ft (2,527.1 m) of streams, rivers, and channels and 1.5 ac (0.61 ha) of surface 

water bodies could be impacted. This alignment alternative could impact 576.1 ac (233.15 ha) of 

groundwater. (See Table 3.14-1.) 

The BNSF–UPRR alignment alternative could indirectly impact 669.5 ac (270.95 ha) of floodplains. In 

addition, 31,632 linear ft (9,641.4 m) of streams, rivers, and channels and 6.3 ac (2.55 ha) of surface 

water bodies could be indirectly affected. It could also impact 2,108.1 ac (853.15 ha) of 

groundwater. (See Table 3.14-2.) 

This alignment alternative would traverse TMDL-impaired portions of the following five surface water 

resources: Avena Drain, Lone Tree Creek, Stanislaus River, Tuolumne River (Don Pedro Reservoir to 

San Joaquin Reservoir), and the Lower Merced River (McSwain Reservoir to San Joaquin River). 

These surface waters are impaired for a variety of pollutants, including (i.e., not limited to) ammonia, 

pathogens, BOD, electrical conductivity, diazinon, Group A pesticides (aldrin, deldrin, chlordane, 

endrin, heptachlor, heptachlor exposide, hexachlorocyclohexane—including lindane—endosulfan, and 

toxaphene), mercury, and unknown toxicity. Although the construction and operation of the HST 

would not be a likely source of these contaminants, the Central Valley has a long history of heavy 

pesticide use, and depending on the binding properties of the pesticides to soil and water, sediment 

runoff from the construction could potentially mobilize and release additional pesticides into these 

water resources. The BNSF–UPRR alignment alternative would be upstream of Mormon Slough 

(section from Commerce Street to Stockton Diverting Channel and section from Stockton Diverting 

Canal to Commerce Street), which is identified as an impaired water resource for organic enrichment, 

low dissolved oxygen, and pathogens. The construction and operation of the HST would not be a 

likely source of these contaminants. 

BNSF Alignment Alternative 

This alignment alternative could potentially affect at least 45 number of unnamed and named water 

resources, including (i.e., not limited to) Mormon Slough/Stockton Diverting Canal; Duck Creek; 

Littlejohns Creek; Avena Drain; Lone Tree Creek; Main District Canal; Stanislaus River; Hetch Hetchy 

Aqueduct; Lateral Numbers 6, 3, 2, and 1; Tuolumne River; Upper Lateral Numbers 2 1⁄2 and 3; 

Merced River; north and south Bloom Laterals; Main Ash Lateral; Black Rascal Creek/Hesse 

Lateral/Medowbrook Lateral; Farmdale Lateral; Miles Creek; Owens Creek; Hadley Lateral/Givens 

Lateral; Le Grand Canal; North Slough/Mariposa Creek; El Nido; the northern and southern section of 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.14 Hydrology and Water Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.14-45

Deadman Creek; Dutchman Creek; Chowchilla River; Ash Slough and Bypass; Berenda Slough; and 

Berenda Creek. 

This alignment alternative could directly impact 191.1 ac (77.34 ha) of floodplains. In addition, 8,398 

linear ft (2,559.7 m) of streams, rivers, and channels and 1.6 ac (0.65 ha) of surface water bodies 

could be affected. This alignment alternative could impact 584.1 ac (236.39 ha) of groundwater. 

(See Table 3.14-1.) 

The BNSF alignment alternative could indirectly impact 759.2 ac (307.25 ha) of floodplains. In 

addition, 32,594 linear ft (9,934.7 m) of streams, rivers, and channels and 6.7 ac (2.71 ha) of surface 

water bodies could be indirectly impacted. Finally, it could impact 2,218.9 ac (897.99 ha) of 

groundwater. (See Table 3.14-2.) 

This alignment alternative would traverse TMDL-impaired portions of the same five surface water 

resources as the BNSF-UPRR alignment alternative. 

UPRR N/S Alignment Alternative 

This alignment alternative could affect at least 35 unnamed and named streams, rivers, creeks, 

channels, and canals, including (i.e., not limited to) French Camp Slough/Littlejohns Creek; Stanislaus 

River; Lateral Numbers 8, 6, 7, 3, 4, and 1; Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct; Tuolumne River; Upper/Lower 

Lateral 3; Merced River; Bear Creek/Black Rascal/Hesse Lateral; Farmdale Lateral Miles Creek; Owens 

Creek; North Slough/Mariposa Creek; El Nido; South Slough; Deadman Creek; Dutchman Creek; 

Chowchilla River; Ash Slough/Ash Slough Bypass; and Berenda Slough. 

The UPRR N/S alignment alternative could directly impact 123.4 ac (49.94 ha) of floodplains. In 

addition, 7,547 linear ft (2,300.3 m) of streams, rivers, and channels could be impacted. Surface 

water bodies are not in the area, and therefore impacts would not occur. This alignment alternative 

could impact 606.5 ac (245.45 ha) of groundwater. There is no land with potentially erosive soils 

that would be directly impacted by this alignment alternative. (See Table 3.14-1.) 

This alignment alternative could indirectly impact 422.7 ac (171.07 ha) of floodplains. In addition, 

41,122 linear ft (12,534 m) of streams, rivers, and channels could be indirectly impacted. Surface 

water bodies are not in the area and therefore would not be impacted. The UPRR N/S alignment 

alternative could impact 2,122.8 ac (859.1 ha) of groundwater. (See Table 3.14-2.) 

This alignment alternative would traverse TMDL-impaired portions of the following three surface 

waters: Stanislaus River, Lower; Tuolumne River (Don Pedro Reservoir to San Joaquin Reservoir); 

and the Merced River, Lower (McSwain Reservoir to San Joaquin River). These surface waters are 

impaired for a variety of pollutants, including (i.e., not limited to) ammonia, pathogens, BOD, 

electrical conductivity, diazinon, Group A pesticides (aldrin, deldrin, chlordane, endrin, heptachlor, 

heptachlor exposide, hexachlorocyclohexane—including lindane—endosulfan, and toxaphene), 

mercury, and unknown toxicity. Although, the construction and operation of the HST would not be a 

likely source of these contaminants, the Central Valley has a long history of heavy pesticide use, and 

depending on the binding properties of the pesticides to soil and water, sediment runoff from the 

construction could potentially mobilize and release additional pesticides into these water resources. 

BNSF Castle Alignment Alternative 

This alignment alternative could potentially affect at least 43 unnamed and named streams, rivers, 

creeks, channels, and canals, including (i.e., not limited to) Mormon Slough/Stockton Diverting Canal; 

Duck Creek; Littlejohns Creek; Avena Drain; Lone Tree Creek; Stanislaus River; Lateral Numbers 6, 3, 

2, and 1; Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct; Tuolumne River; Upper Lateral Numbers 21⁄2 and 3; Merced River; 

North Bloom Lateral; Gertrude Lateral; Fahrens Creek; Bear Creek/Black Rascal Creek; Doane Canal; 

Fairfield Canal; Miles Creek; Planada Canal; Owens Creek; Le Grand Canal; Mariposa Creek/Duck 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.14 Hydrology and Water Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.14-46

Slough; north and south sections of Deadman Creek; Dutchman Creek; Chowchilla River; Ash Slough 

and Ash Bypass Canal; Berenda Slough; and Berenda Creek. 

The BNSF Castle alignment alternative could directly impact 158.2 ac (64.02 ha) of floodplains. In 

addition, 6,965 linear ft (2,122.9 m) of streams, rivers, and channels and 1.6 ac (0.65 ha) of surface 

water bodies could be affected. This alternative could impact 586.1 ac (237.19 ha) of groundwater. 

(See Table 3.14-1.) 

The BNSF Castle alignment alternative could indirectly impact 628.8 ac (254.48 ha) of floodplains. In 

addition, 30,371 linear ft (9,257.1 m) of streams, rivers, and channels and 6.7 ac (2.71 ha) of surface 

water bodies could be indirectly affected. This alignment alternative could also impact 2,220.6 ac 

(898.68 ha) of groundwater. (See Table 3.14-2.) 

This alignment alternative would traverse TMDL-impaired portions of same six surface waters as the 

BNSF and BNSF-UPRR alignment alternatives. 

UPRR-BNSF Castle Alignment Alternative 

This alignment alternative could potentially affect at least 34 unnamed and named streams, rivers, 

creeks, channels, and canals, including (i.e., not limited to) French Camp Slough/Littlejohns Creek; 

Stanislaus River; Lateral Numbers 8, 6, 7, 3, 4, and 1; Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct; Tuolumne River; 

Lower Lateral Number 2; Upper/Lower Lateral Number 3; North Bloom Lateral; Gertrude Lateral; 

Casad Canal; Canal Creek/Livingston Canal; Fahrens Creek; Bear Creek/Black Rascal Creek; Doane 

Canal; Fairfield Canal; Miles Creek; Planada Canal; Owens Creek; Le Grand Canal; Mariposa 

Creek/Duck Slough; north and south sections of Deadmans Creek; Dutchman Creek; Chowchilla 

River; Ash Slough and Ash Bypass Canal; Berenda Slough; and Berenda Creek. 

The UPRR-BNSF Castle alignment alternative could directly impact 97.7 ac (39.54 ha) of floodplains. 

In addition, 7,734 linear ft (2,357.3 m) of streams, rivers, and channels and 0.1 ac (0.04 ha) of 

surface water bodies could be affected. This alignment alternative could impact 593.7 ac (240.27 ha) 

of groundwater as well. There are no potentially erosive soils that would be directly impacted in this 

area. (See Table 3.14-1.) 

The UPRR-BNSF Castle alignment alternative could indirectly impact 388 ac (157.02 ha) of 

floodplains. In addition, 43,276 linear ft (13,190.5 m) of streams, rivers, and channels and 0.4 ac 

(0.16 ha) of surface water bodies could be indirectly affected. This alignment alternative could 

indirectly impact 2,243.4 ac (907.9 ha) of groundwater as well. There are no potentially erosive soils 

that could be indirectly impacted in this area. (See Table 3.14-2.) 

This alignment alternative would traverse TMDL-impaired portions of the following two surface water 

resources: Lower Stanislaus River and Tuolumne River (Don Pedro Reservoir to San Joaquin 

Reservoir). These surface waters are impaired for a variety of pollutants, including diazinon, Group A 

pesticides (aldrin, deldrin, chlordane, endrin, heptachlor, heptachlor exposide, 

hexachlorocyclohexane—including lindane—endosulfan, and toxaphene), mercury, and unknown 

toxicity. Although the construction and operation of the HST would not be a likely source of these 

contaminants, the Central Valley has a long history of heavy pesticide use. Depending on the binding 

properties of the pesticides to soil and water, sediment runoff from the construction could potentially 

mobilize and release additional pesticides into these water resources. 

UPRR-BNSF Alignment Alternative 

This alignment alternative could potentially affect least 42 unnamed and named streams, rivers, 

creeks, channels, and canals, including (i.e., not limited to) French Camp Slough/Littlejohns Creek; 

Stanislaus River; Lateral Numbers 8, 6, 7, 3, 4, and 1; Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct; Tuolumne River; 

Lower Lateral Number 2; Upper/Lower Lateral Number 3; upper, middle, and lower sections of Cross 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.14 Hydrology and Water Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.14-47

Ditch Number 2; Merced River; north and south Bloom Lateral; Black Rascal Creek/Hesse 

Lateral/Medowbrook Lateral; Merced Lateral/Bear Creek/Black Rascal Creek; Farmdale Lateral; Miles 

Creek; Owens Creek; North Slough/Mariposa Creek; El Nido; South Slough; Deadman Creek; 

Dutchman Creek; Chowchilla River; Ash Slough and Ash Slough Bypass; and Berenda Slough. 

This alignment alternative could directly impact 123.1 ac (49.82 ha) of floodplains and 9,060 linear ft 

(2,761.5 m) of streams, rivers, and channels. This alignment alternative could also impact 582.9 ac 

(235.9 ha) of groundwater as well. There are no potentially erosive soils that would be directly 

affected in the area. (See Table 3.14-1.) 

The UPRR-BNSF alignment alternative could indirectly impact 428.7 ac (173.49 ha) of floodplains and 

44,538 linear ft (13,575.2 m) of streams, rivers, and channels. This alignment alternative could also 

indirectly impact 2,131 ac (862.42 ha) of groundwater as well. There are no potentially erosive soils 

that could be indirectly affected in this area. (See Table 3.14-2.) 

This alignment alternative would traverse TMDL-impaired segments of the same three surface water 

resources as the UPRR N/S Alignment Alternative. 

Station Location Options 

Modesto (Downtown) Station 

There are no floodplains, streams, surface water bodies, or potentially erosive soils near this station. 

The station could directly impact 8.5 ac (3.44 ha) and indirectly impact 12.6 ac (5.10 ha) of 

groundwater. 

Briggsmore (Amtrak) Station 

There are no floodplains, streams, surface water bodies, or potentially erosive soils within the vicinity 

of this station. The station could directly impact 14.2 ac (5.75 ha) and indirectly impact 18.9 ac 

(7.65 ha) of groundwater. 

Merced (Downtown) Station 

There are no streams, surface water bodies, or potentially erosive soils near this station. The station 

could directly impact 11.7 ac (4.73 ha) of floodplains, as well as 11.7 ac (4.73 ha) of groundwater. 

In addition, the station could indirectly impact 15.3 ac (6.19 ha) of floodplains and 15.3 ac (6.19 ha) 

of groundwater. 

Castle AFB Station 

There are no floodplains, surface water bodies, or potentially erosive soils near this station. The 

station could directly impact 416 linear ft (126.8 m) of streams, rivers, and channels, as well as 18 ac 

(7.28 ha) of groundwater. In addition, the station could indirectly impact 516 linear ft (157.3 m) of 

streams, rivers, and channels and 23.5 ac (9.51 ha) of groundwater. 

Summary of Impacts 

The alignment alternatives in this corridor would either connect with the alignment alternatives from 

the East Bay to Central Valley corridor or the San Jose to Central Valley corridor. This corridor would 

also connect with the statewide system extending north to Sacramento and south to Los Angeles. 

The corridor is composed of variations of BNSF alignment alternatives and UPRR alignment 

alternatives. 

The alignment alternatives within the Central Valley corridor have the potential to affect between 33 

and 45 named and unnamed water resources. Many of the alignment alternatives could impact many 

of the same water resources. For example, the BNSF-UPRR, BNSF, and BNSF-Castle alignment 

alternatives all cross the same water resources with a few exceptions. Likewise, the UPRR N/S, 

UPRR-BNSF-Castle, and UPRR-BNSF alignment alternatives also all cross the same water resources 

with a few exceptions. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.14 Hydrology and Water Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.14-48

Direct Impacts 

As shown in Table 3.14-1 and Figure 3.14-1, the BNSF-UPRR, BNSF, and BNSF Castle alignment 

alternatives could directly impact more area within the 100-year floodplain than the UPRR N/S, UPRRBNSF-Castle, and UPRR-BNSF alignment alternatives. The primary difference in potential floodplain 

impacts between the BNSF alignment alternatives as compared to the UPRR alignment alternatives is 

in the area southeast of Stockton to Escalon. Within this area, BNSF alignment alternatives could 

potentially impact 67 ac (27.11 ha) and would be constructed primarily at-grade or on cut and fill. 

The UPRR alignment alternatives would also potentially impact about 7 ac (2.83 ha) of floodplain in 

the area around Stockton, and the alignment would be constructed on aerial structure and at-grade. 

The other large area of potential floodplain impacts is around Merced where the BNSF alignment 

alternatives could potentially affect up to 32 ac (12.95 ha) more floodplain than the UPRR alignment 

alternatives. Both the BNSF and UPRR alignment alternatives would be constructed primarily either 

at-grade or on cut and fill. Overall, the UPRR-BNSF Castle alignment alternative would have the least 

amount of impact on floodplains. Where there is the potential to impact floodplains, alignments that 

are either at-grade or on cut and fill would be constructed with culverts sized appropriately to convey 

anticipated storm flows and to minimize ponding. 

Each of the alignment alternatives would cross the Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct, Stanislaus River, 

Tuolumne River, Merced River, and Chowchilla River, as well as many of the same streams and 

canals. The UPRR-BNSF alignment alternative would have the potential to impact up to 2,095 linear 

ft (638.6 m) more rivers, streams, and canals as compared to the other alignment alternatives. This 

is primarily due to the impacts associated with the numerous water crossings south of Turlock 

through Merced County where the majority of water crossings are within this corridor as shown on 

Figure 3.14-3. The UPRR N/S and UPRR-BNSF Castle alignment alternatives would have similar 

amounts of impact on watercourses, as would the BNSF-UPRR and BNSF alignment alternatives. 

Overall, the BNSF-Castle alignment alternative would have the least amount of potential impact on 

watercourses, affecting approximately 6,965 linear ft (2,122.9 m) with most of the difference 

between alignment alternatives being south of Turlock. The BNSF-UPRR, BNSF, and BNSF-Castle 

alignment alternatives would impact up to 1.6 ac (0.65 ha) of water bodies, primarily associated with 

agriculture. 

With each of the alignment alternatives, there would be a small increase in the amount of impervious 

surfaces in areas where the alignment alternatives would not be along existing transportation 

facilities or in developed areas; however, the HST would consist of permeable track-fill rather than 

impervious pavement resulting in a low runoff potential. Each of the alignment alternatives would 

have the potential to encounter groundwater because the whole Central Valley is underlain by 

groundwater. The UPRR N/S alignment alternative would have the potential to encounter the most 

groundwater due to its longer length, and the BNSF-UPRR alignment alternative the least because it 

is the shortest in length of the alignment alternatives. All of the alignment alternatives within this 

corridor would primarily be constructed at-grade, on cut and fill, or on embankment with some aerial 

structures and the potential to encounter groundwater would be limited. Where are aerial structures 

are proposed, there is the potential to encounter groundwater where column support footings would 

be required. Impacts on groundwater recharge would be low to moderate for all of the alignment 

alternatives due to the overall footprint of the HST Alignment Alternatives. The potential for erosion 

due to runoff would primarily be limited to locations where earthwork would be required, such as 

near the river crossings. Overall, the BNSF-UPRR alignment alternative would have the least 

potential impact on groundwater. 

Indirect Impacts 

The findings for indirect impacts are similar to what was discussed above regarding direct impacts. 

As shown in Table 3.14-2, the BNSF alignment alternative would have the potential to indirectly 

impact up to 370 more acres (149.74 ha) of floodplains than the UPRR-BNSF Castle alignment 

alternative. The UPRR-BNSF alignment alternative would affect up to 14,000 more linear ft (4,267.2 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.14 Hydrology and Water Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.14-49

m) of watercourses compared to the BNSF Castle alignment alternative. Like direct impacts, the 

BNSF alignment alternatives would have the potential to indirectly affect water bodies. Each of the 

alignment alternatives would have the potential to indirectly impact groundwater, but as noted 

above, the alignment alternatives would primarily be constructed at-grade, on cut and fill, or on 

embankment with some aerial structures, and the potential to encounter groundwater would be 

limited. 

TMDLs 

The BNSF-UPRR, BNSF, and BNSF Castle alignment alternatives would each traverse the same six 

TMDL-impaired water resources and they would all be upstream of the Mormon Slough, also an 

impaired water resource. The UPRR N/S and UPRR-BNSF alignment alternatives could traverse the 

same three surface water resources. Although none of the alignment alternatives are expected to 

contribute to the impairments of these waters, the waters are impaired for Group A pesticides, and 

based on the binding properties of the pesticides to soil and water, any sediment runoff from the 

construction of the HST could potentially mobilize and release additional pesticides into the water 

resources. 

3.14.4 Role of Design Practices in Avoiding and Minimizing Effects 

The Authority is committed to utilizing existing transportation corridors (existing railroad or highway rightof-way) in the proposed HST system in order to minimize potential impacts to biological resources 

bisecting sensitive areas and creating new crossings or encroachments on water resources. Use of 

existing transportation corridors helps minimize potential impacts because they have already imposed a 

footprint/crossing that the HST alignment alternatives would expand. Moreover, portions of the system 

would be in tunnel or on aerial structure, which would avoid and/or minimize impacts to surface water 

resources. 

The Authority has striven to avoid water resources throughout the extensive alignment studies leading to 

and including this program-level study. In addition, the Authority is committed to continuing avoidance 

and minimization of potential impacts during subsequent project-level analysis; however, it is unavoidable 

that many streams and water resources would be crossed with the proposed Bay Area to Central Valley 

HST Alignment Alternatives. Therefore, during project-level studies, the Authority would work closely 

with the regulatory agencies to develop acceptable specific design and construction standards for stream 

crossings, including (i.e., not limited to) maintaining open surface (bridged versus closed culvert) 

crossings, infrastructure setbacks, erosion control measures, sediment controlling excavation/fill 

practices, and other BMPs. 

There is also potential for impacts to groundwater in areas of the system where tunneling or substantial 

excavation would be necessary. For the portions of the HST alignment alternatives in tunnel, geologic 

exploration, including groundwater sampling, would be completed prior to constructing the proposed 

tunnels. The geologic/soils/groundwater conditions would be evaluated prior to and monitored during 

construction to aid in the development of construction techniques and measures to minimize effects to 

ground- and surface water resources. Based on available geologic information and previous tunneling 

projects in proximity to proposed tunnels, the Authority plans to fully line tunnels with impermeable 

material to prevent infiltration of ground- or surface waters. Infiltration of ground and surface waters 

into tunnels is undesirable for operations and maintenance reasons and increases the potential for 

adverse impacts to ground and surface waters. All reasonable measures would be taken to avoid water 

infiltration. In addition, it is assumed that tunnel boring machines would be appropriately equipped with 

shielding to minimize the infiltration of higher pressure groundwater during the boring process. 

3.14.5 Mitigation Strategies and CEQA Significance Conclusions 

Based on the analysis above, and considering the sophisticated design, engineering, and construction 

practices that would be used (and required in order to obtain permits), each of the proposed HST 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.14 Hydrology and Water Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.14-50

Alignment Alternatives would have a potentially significant impact on hydrology and water quality in the 

study area. Placing the HST alignment alternatives within or along existing transportation corridors 

reduces the potential for adverse effects to these water resources, and engineering and design practices 

further reduce potential adverse impacts to these water resources (e.g., avoiding encroachments on 

water resources, use of tunnels lined with impermeable surfaces, infrastructure setbacks from surface 

waters, and using permeable surfaces and structures to reduce flow and drainage obstructions). 

Additional avoidance and mitigation strategies, as well as the design practices, would be applied to 

reduce these impacts in the second-tier, project-level analyses and in obtaining permits for facilities 

included in the HST system. 

Proposed general mitigation strategies would be fairly similar for all HST Alignment Alternatives. These 

strategies are described as general policies that could be adopted and developed in detail at the projectspecific level of environmental analysis. First, measures designed to avoid or limit impacts would be 

considered. If avoidance measures are not feasible, then mitigation measures directed at reconstruction, 

restoration, or replacement of the resource, in close coordination with state and federal resource 

agencies, would be considered as part of subsequent project planning, environmental review, and design. 

Potential mitigation strategies are listed below. 

A. FLOODPLAINS 

Mitigation for potential impacts on floodplains would include consideration of the following strategies. 

• Avoid or minimize construction of facilities within floodplains where feasible. 

• Minimize the footprint of facilities within floodplains through design changes or use of aerial 

structures. 

• Restore the floodplain to be equivalent to its prior function in instances where the floodplain is 

affected by construction. 

B. SURFACE WATERS, RUNOFF, AND EROSION 

Mitigation strategies for potential impacts on surface waters would include consideration of the 

following. 

• As part of the future project-level analysis, conduct studies and evaluate potential alteration in 

coastal hydrology/hydraulics in tidal lagoons, bays, and marshes from specific construction 

methods or facility designs. Construction methods or facility designs to minimize potential 

impacts would be considered and used to the extent feasible. 

• Permit requirements as part of project-level review would include SWPPPs and NPDES permits. 

The SWPPP would include BMPs to minimize potential short-term increases in sediment transport 

caused by construction, including erosion control requirements, stormwater management, and 

channel dewatering for all stream and lake crossings. Regional NPDES permit requirements 

would be followed and BMPs, as required for new developments, would be implemented. These 

may include measures to provide permeable surfaces where feasible and to retain and treat 

stormwater on site using catch basins and treatment (filtering) wet basins. Other measures to 

manage the overall amount and quality of stormwater runoff to regional systems would be 

detailed as part of SWPPP. 

• Apply for and obtain appropriate permits under Sections 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act and 

comply with mitigation measures required in the permits. Other mitigation measures may include 

habitat restoration, reconstruction on site, or habitat replacement off site to compensate for loss 

of native habitats and wetlands. The ultimate goal of the mitigation would be to ensure minimal 

impact on surface water quality. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.14 Hydrology and Water Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.14-51

• Under the requirements of the NPDES Caltrans Statewide Storm Water Permit and the 

Construction General Permit, a SWPPP would be developed during construction and implemented 

to reduce pollutants in stormwater discharges and the potential for erosion and sedimentation. 

• Implement BMPs which would include: 

− Practices to minimize the contact of construction materials, equipment, and maintenance 

supplies with stormwater. 

− Practices to reduce erosion of exposed soil, including soil stabilization, watering for dust 

control, perimeter silt fences, placement of rice straw bales, and sediment basins. 

− Practices to maintain water quality, including infiltration systems, detention systems, 

retention systems, constructed wetland systems, filtration systems, biofiltration/bioretention 

systems, grass buffer strips, ponding areas, organic mulch layers, planting soil beds, sand 

beds, and vegetated systems (biofilters) such as vegetated swales and grass filter strips that 

are designed to convey and treat either shallow flow (swales) or sheetflow (filter strips) 

runoff. 

• Work around various surface water bodies would be required to follow CWA Sections 401 and 

404 and applicable permit requirements. 

• Follow requirements of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act if work is required around a 

water body, such as the crossing of the San Francisco Bay, designated as navigable and 

applicable permit requirements. 

• Work along the banks of various surface water bodies would require an application for a CDFG 

Section 1600 Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement. 

• Implement a spill prevention and emergency response plan to handle potential fuel or other 

spills. 

• Incorporate biofiltration swales to intercept surface runoff. 

• Where feasible, avoid significant development of facilities in areas that may have substantial 

erosion risk, including areas with erosive soils and steep slopes. 

C. GROUNDWATER 

Mitigation to reduce potential impacts from construction and operation of project components on 

groundwater discharge or recharge would include consideration of the following strategies. 

• As part of the future project-level analysis, minimize development of facilities in areas that may 

have substantial groundwater discharge or affect recharge.

• Apply for and obtain waste discharge requirements, where needed (e.g., for dewatering), as part 

of project-level review.

• As part of the future project-level analysis, develop facility designs that are elevated, or at a 

minimum are permeable, and would not affect recharge potential where construction is required 

in areas of potentially substantial groundwater discharge or recharge. 

• Apply for and obtain a SWPPP under NPDES permit requirements for grading, and describe BMPs 

that would control release of contaminants near areas of surface water or groundwater recharge 

(include constraining fueling and other sensitive activities to alternative locations, providing drip 

pans under some equipment, and providing daily checks of vehicle condition). 

• Include consideration of use and retention of native materials with high infiltration potential at 

the ground surface in areas that are critical to infiltration for groundwater recharge. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.14 Hydrology and Water Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.14-52

The above mitigation strategies, which include further study leading to refinement of site-specific 

mitigation measures and BMPs, are expected to substantially lessen or avoid impacts to hydrology and 

water quality. At the second-tier, project-level review, applications of these mitigation strategies are 

expected to reduce impacts to hydrology and water quality to a less-than-significant level. Additional 

environmental assessment would allow more precise evaluation in the second-tier, project-level 

environmental analyses. 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.15-1

3.15 Biological Resources and Wetlands 

This section describes the biological resources and wetlands that could occur in the study region and 

identifies the potential for impacts on biological resources and wetlands as a result of the construction 

and operation of the various HST Alignment Alternatives1

. The evaluation in this section includes 

potential adverse biological impacts on sensitive habitat and plant and wildlife species that have been 

listed or proposed as threatened or endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) or 

California Endangered Species Act (CESA). The evaluation also includes potential adverse affects to 

wetlands under the jurisdiction of Section 404 of the CWA. This section also evaluates potential 

interference with the movement of native or migratory species, potential conflicts with policies protecting 

biological resources, and/or potential conflicts with an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) or other 

approved habitat management plan. 

3.15.1 Regulatory Requirements and Methods of Evaluation 

A. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 

This section briefly identifies the key federal and state laws and regulations related to biological 

resources. 

Federal Laws and Regulations

Federal Endangered Species Act 

The ESA protects fish and wildlife species that have been identified as threatened or endangered by 

the USFWS or National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NOAA Fisheries). The ESA also protects their habitats. Endangered refers to species, subspecies, or 

distinct populations that are in danger of extinction through all or a significant portion of their range; 

threatened refers to species, subspecies, or distinct populations that are likely to become endangered 

in the near future. 

The USFWS and NOAA Fisheries administer the ESA. In general, NOAA Fisheries is responsible for 

protection of ESA-listed marine species and anadromous fishes, whereas listed, proposed, and 

candidate wildlife and plant species and inland fish species are under USFWS jurisdiction. Section 9 

of the ESA prohibits the unlawful take of federally threatened or endangered species. Take of listed 

species can be authorized through the Section 7 consultation process for actions either undertaken or 

funded by federal agencies, or take can be authorized through the Section 10 permit process for 

actions undertaken by nonfederal agencies. Federal agency actions include activities that are on 

federal land, conducted by a federal agency, funded by a federal agency, or authorized by a federal 

agency (including issuance of federal permits and licenses). 

Under Section 7, the federal agency conducting, funding, or permitting an action (i.e., the federal 

lead agency) must consult with the USFWS or NOAA Fisheries, as appropriate, to ensure that the 

proposed action will not jeopardize endangered or threatened species or destroy or adversely modify 

designated critical habitat. If a proposed project “may affect” a listed species or designated critical 

habitat, the lead agency is required to prepare a biological assessment (BA) evaluating the nature 

and severity of the expected effect. In response, the USFWS issues a biological opinion (BO) with a 

determination that the proposed action either: 

• May jeopardize the continued existence of one or more listed species (jeopardy finding) or result 

in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat (adverse modification finding) or 

 

1

 See Section 3.0, Introduction, for an explanation of how this section fits together with the HST Network Alternatives presented in 

Chapter 7, as well as for an overview of the information presented in the other chapters. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.15 Biological Resources and Wetlands 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.15-2

• Will not jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species (no jeopardy finding) or result in 

adverse modification of critical habitat (no adverse modification finding). 

The BO issued by the USFWS may stipulate discretionary “reasonable and prudent” conservation 

measures. If the project does not jeopardize a listed species, the USFWS issues an incidental take 

statement to authorize the proposed activity. 

In cases where a nonfederal entity is undertaking an action that does not require federal 

authorization, the take of listed species must be permitted by the USFWS through the Section 10 

process. If the proposed project would result in the incidental take of a listed species, the applicant 

must first obtain a Section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permit (ITP). Incidental take under Section 10 

is defined as take of federally listed fish and wildlife species “that is incidental to, but not the 

purposes of, otherwise lawful activities.” To receive an ITP, the nonfederal entity is required to 

prepare an HCP, which must include conservation measures that avoid, minimize, and mitigate the 

project’s impact on listed species and their habitat. 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended by the Sustainable 

Fisheries Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-267), requires all federal agencies to consult with NOAA 

Fisheries on all actions or proposed actions (permitted, funded, or undertaken by the agency) that 

may adversely affect fish habitats. Under the provisions of the act, Congress mandated the 

identification of habitats essential to managed species (e.g., commercial species) and measures to 

conserve and enhance this habitat. The act requires cooperation among NOAA Fisheries, the 

councils, fishing participants, and federal and state agencies to protect, conserve, and enhance 

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). EFH is defined as those waters and substrate necessary to fish for 

spawning, breeding, feeding, and growth to maturity. 

Clean Water Act 

The CWA was enacted as an amendment to the federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, which 

outlined the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants to waters of the United States. 

The CWA now serves as the primary federal law protecting the quality of the nation’s surface waters, 

including lakes, rivers, and coastal wetlands. 

The CWA empowers the EPA to set national water quality standards and effluent limitations and 

includes programs addressing both point-source and non-point-source pollution. Point-source 

pollution originates or enters surface waters at a single, discrete location, such as an outfall structure 

or excavation on a construction site. Non-point-source pollution originates over a broader area and 

includes urban contaminants in stormwater runoff and sediment loading from upstream areas. The 

CWA operates on the principle that all discharges into the nation’s waters are unlawful unless 

specifically authorized by a permit; permit review is the CWA’s primary regulatory tool. 

Additional details on specific sections of the CWA are provided below. 

Section 401 

Under CWA Section 401, applicants for a federal license or permit to conduct activities that may 

result in the discharge of a pollutant into waters of the United States must obtain certification from 

the state in which the discharge would originate or, if appropriate, from the interstate water pollution 

control agency with jurisdiction over affected waters at the point where the discharge would 

originate. Therefore, all projects that have a federal component and may affect state water quality 

(including projects that require federal agency approval, such as issuance of a Section 404 permit) 

must also comply with Section 401. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.15 Biological Resources and Wetlands 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.15-3

Section 402 

CWA Section 402 regulates construction-related stormwater discharges to surface waters through the 

NPDES program, administered by the EPA. In California, the State Water Board is authorized by the 

EPA to oversee the NPDES program through the RWQCBs (see Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control 

Act below). Most of the study region is under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay RWQCB and 

the Central Valley RWQCB; southern Santa Clara Valley and northern San Benito County are under 

the jurisdiction of the Central Coast RWQCB. 

NPDES permits are required for projects that disturb more than 1 ac (0.4 ha) of land and for 

discharge of groundwater into waterways. The NPDES permitting process requires the applicant to 

file a public NOI to discharge stormwater and to prepare and implement a SWPPP. The SWPPP 

includes a site map and a description of proposed construction activities. In addition, it describes the 

BMPs that will be implemented to prevent soil erosion and discharge of other construction-related 

pollutants (e.g., petroleum products, solvents, paints, cement) and potential groundwater pollutants 

that could contaminate nearby water resources. Permittees are required to conduct annual 

monitoring and reporting to ensure that BMPs are correctly implemented and effective in controlling 

the discharge of stormwater-related pollutants. 

Section 404 

CWA Section 404 regulates the discharge of dredged and fill materials into waters of the United 

States. Waters of the United States refers to oceans, bays, rivers, streams, lakes, ponds, and 

wetlands, including nonperennial drainages with a defined bed and bank and any drainage channel 

that conveys natural runoff, even if it has been realigned, and seasonal and perennial wetlands, 

including coastal wetlands. 

Applicants must obtain a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for all discharges of 

dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands, before proceeding with a 

proposed activity. As part of the wetland delineation and verification process, the USACE will 

determine whether the wetlands in the study area are regulated under Section 404. 

The USACE may issue either an individual permit evaluated on a case-by-case basis or a general 

permit evaluated at a program level for a series of related activities. General permits are 

preauthorized and are issued to cover multiple instances of similar activities expected to cause only 

minimal adverse environmental effects. Nationwide permits (NWPs) are a type of general permit 

issued to cover particular fill activities. Each NWP specifies particular conditions that must be met for 

the NWP to apply to a particular project. Waters of the United States in the study area are under the 

jurisdiction of the USACE Sacramento District. 

Compliance with Section 404 requires compliance with several other environmental laws and 

regulations. The USACE cannot issue an individual permit or verify the use of a general permit until 

the requirements of the NEPA, ESA, and National Historic Preservation Act have been met. In 

addition, the USACE cannot issue or verify any permit until a water quality certification or waiver of 

certification has been issued pursuant to Section 401. 

Certain activities are exempt from the Section 404 permitting process, including: 

• Farming, ranching, and forestry activities that are considered normal and ongoing (as of 1985 

conditions), such as plowing, harvesting, and minor drainage of upland areas to waters of the 

United States. 

• Construction and maintenance of stock ponds and irrigation ditches. 

• Maintenance of drainage ditches. 

• Construction of temporary sedimentation basins in upland areas. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.15 Biological Resources and Wetlands 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.15-4

• Construction and maintenance of farm, forest, and mining roads in accordance with BMPs. 

• Other activities regulated by an approved program of BMPs authorized by CWA Section 

208(b)(4). 

Section 404 permits may be issued only for the project’s LEDPA. That is, authorization of a proposed 

discharge is prohibited if there is a practicable alternative that would have less adverse impacts and 

lacks other significant adverse consequences. 

Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act 

Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 requires authorization from the USACE for the 

construction of any structure in or over any navigable waters of the United States. Tidal waterways 

within the Sacramento/San Joaquin drainage basin are considered navigable waters. The law applies 

to any dredging, excavation, filling, or other modification of a navigable water of the United States, 

as well as to all structures, including bank protection (e.g., riprap) and mooring structures, such as 

those in a marina. Structures or work outside the limits defined for navigable waters of the United 

States requires a Section 10 permit if the structure or work affects the course, location, or condition 

of the water body. 

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 

The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act requires consultation with the USFWS when the waters of any 

stream or other body of water are proposed, authorized, permitted, or licensed to be impounded, 

diverted, or otherwise controlled or modified under a federal permit or license (16 USC 661-667[e]). 

Most USFWS comments on applications for permits under CWA Section 404 or River and Harbors Act 

Section 10 are conveyed to the USACE through the consultation process required by this act. 

The USFWS provides advisory comments and recommends mitigation measures to avoid impacts on 

wetlands or modify activities that may directly affect wetlands. Mitigation recommended by the 

USFWS may include restoring or creating habitat to avoid a net loss of wetland functions and values. 

Although consultation with the USFWS is required, the USACE is not required to implement USFWS 

recommendations. 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

The Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 USC 703, Supp. I, 1989) prohibits killing, possessing, or 

trading in migratory birds except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the U.S. Secretary of 

the Interior. This act encompasses whole birds, parts of birds, and bird nests and eggs. 

Executive Order 13186, signed January 10, 2001, directs each federal agency taking actions that will 

have or will likely have a negative impact on migratory bird populations to work with the USFWS to 

develop an MOU to promote the conservation of migratory bird populations. Protocols developed 

under the MOU will include the following agency responsibilities: 

• Avoid and minimize, to the extent possible, adverse impacts on migratory bird resources when 

coordinating agency actions. 

• Restore and enhance habitat of migratory birds, as practicable. 

• Prevent or abate the detrimental alteration of environment for the benefit of migratory birds, as 

practicable. 

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1947, as amended 

The federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 USC 668 et seq.) makes it unlawful to import, 

export, take, sell, purchase, or barter any bald eagle or golden eagle, or their parts, products, nests, 

or eggs. The term take includes pursuing, shooting, poisoning, wounding, killing, capturing, 

trapping, collecting, molesting, or disturbing. Exceptions may be granted by the USFWS for scientific 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.15 Biological Resources and Wetlands 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.15-5

or exhibition use, or for traditional and cultural use by Native Americans. However, no permits may 

be issued for import, export, or commercial activities involving eagles. 

Coastal Zone Management Act 

The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972 (administered by NOAA Fisheries) provides for 

the management of the nations coastal resources, including the Great Lakes, and balances economic 

development with environmental conservation. 

The CZMA is a voluntary federal-state partnership that is designed to encourage state-tailored coastal 

management programs. It outlines two national programs, the National Coastal Zone Management 

Program and the National Estuarine Research Reserve System, and aims to balance competing land 

and water issues in the coastal zone, while estuarine reserves serve as field laboratories to provide a 

greater understanding of estuaries and how humans impact them. The overall program objectives of 

CZMA remain balanced to "preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, to restore or enhance the 

resources of the nation's coastal zone." 

Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands 

Executive Order 11990 (issued in 1977) is an overall wetland policy for all federal agencies managing 

federal lands, sponsoring federal projects, or providing federal funds to state and local projects. It 

requires federal agencies to follow procedures for avoidance, mitigation, and preservation, with public 

input, before proposing new construction in wetlands. Compliance with CWA Section 404 permit 

requirements may constitute compliance with the requirements of Executive Order 11990. The DOT’s 

policies for complying with Executive Order 11990 are set forth in DOT Order 5660 1.A, and its 

regulations for implementing Executive Order 11990 are provided in 23 CFR 777. 

Executive Order 13112, Invasive Species 

Executive Order 13112 (February 3, 1999) directs all federal agencies to prevent and control 

introductions of invasive species in a cost-effective and environmentally sound manner. It 

established a National Invasive Species Council (NISC) made up of federal agencies and departments 

and a supporting Invasive Species Advisory Committee (ISAC) composed of state, local, and private 

entities. The NISC and ISAC have prepared a national invasive species management plan (2001) that 

recommends objectives and measures to implement the order and prevent the introduction and 

spread of invasive species. 

State Laws and Regulations

California Endangered Species Act 

CESA protects plant and wildlife species that have been designated by CDFG as threatened or 

endangered. CESA prohibits the take of endangered and threatened species. Under CESA, take is 

defined as an activity that would directly or indirectly kill an individual of a species. The definition of 

take does not include harm or harassment of state-listed species or the destruction of their habitat. 

In accordance with the CESA, CDFG has jurisdiction over state-listed species (California Fish and 

Game Code 2070). Additionally, CDFG maintains lists of species of special concern that are defined 

as species that appear to be vulnerable to extinction because of declining populations, limited ranges, 

or continuing threats. 

California Fish and Game Code 

Fully Protected Species 

The California Fish and Game Code provides protection from take for a variety of species, referred to 

as fully protected species. Fully protected fish species are protected under Section 5515; fully 

protected amphibian and reptile species are protected under Section 5050; fully protected bird 

species are protected under Section 3511; and fully protected mammal species are protected under 

Section 4700. The California Fish and Game Code defines take as “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.15 Biological Resources and Wetlands 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.15-6

kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill.” Except for take related to scientific research, 

all take of fully protected species is prohibited. 

Sections 3503 and 3503.5 

Section 3503 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibits the killing of birds or the destruction of 

bird nests. Section 3503.5 prohibits the killing of raptor species and the destruction of raptor nests. 

Many bird species could potentially nest in the study area or vicinity. These nests would be protected 

under these sections of the California Fish and Game Code. 

California Native Plant Protection Act 

Regarding rare plant species, CESA defers to the California Native Plant Protection Act of 1977. This 

act prohibits importing rare and endangered plants into California, taking rare and endangered 

plants, and selling rare and endangered plants. State-listed plants are protected mainly in cases 

where state agencies are involved in projects under CEQA. In these cases, plants listed as rare under 

the Native Plant Protection Act are not protected under CESA but can be protected under the act 

through the CEQA process. 

Streambed Alterations 

Under Sections 1600–1607 of the California Fish and Game Code, the CDFG has jurisdictional 

authority over rivers, streams, and lakes from which fish and wildlife derive benefit. Under Section 

1602, CDFG regulates projects that will 1) divert, obstruct, or change the natural flow or the bed, 

channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake designated by the department in which there is at any 

time an existing fish or wildlife resource or from which these resources derive benefit; 2) use material 

from the streambeds designated by the department; or 3) result in the disposal or deposition of 

debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it can pass 

into any river, stream, or lake designated by the department. A proponent of a project that has the 

potential to affect a stream- or lakebed is required to notify the CDFG of the proposed activity. 

The ephemeral drainages within the study area are likely to meet the California Fish and Game 

Code’s definition of a stream and would be subject to CDFG regulation, and the CDFG would need to 

be notified before undertaking activities in the ephemeral drainages. It is likely that CDFG would 

require a lake- or streambed alteration agreement for construction across these drainages. 

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act 

Section 13260(a) of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (contained in the California Water 

Code) requires any person discharging waste or proposing to discharge waste, other than to a 

community sewer system, within any region that could affect the quality of the waters of the State to 

file a report of waste discharge (ROWD). The discharge of dredged or fill material may constitute a 

discharge of waste that could affect the quality of waters of the State. 

Historically, California relied on its authority under Section 401 of the CWA to regulate discharges of 

dredged or fill material to California waters. That section requires an applicant to obtain “water 

quality certification” from the State Water Board through its RWQCBs to ensure compliance with state 

water quality standards before certain federal licenses or permits may be issued. The permits subject 

to Section 401 include permits for the discharge of dredged or fill materials (CWA Section 404 

permits) issued by the USACE. Waste discharge requirements under the Porter-Cologne Water 

Quality Control Act were typically waived for projects that required certification. 

In 2004, the State Water Board issued Water Quality Order No. 2004-004-DWQ. This order 

addresses general waste discharge requirements (general WDRs) for discharges of dredged or fill 

material to waters deemed by the USACE to be outside its jurisdiction and therefore not subject to 

Section 404 of the CWA. In general, these are waters found to be “isolated.” These general WDRs 

are restricted to discharges of less than 0.2 ac (0.08 ha). If a discharge does not qualify for general 

WDRs, an ROWD must be filed using a 401 Certification Application. Because the impacts on the 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.15 Biological Resources and Wetlands 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.15-7

ephemeral drainages within the study area would be temporary and less than 0.2 ac (0.08 ha) of 

land, a ROWD would not need to be filed. 

California Coastal Act 

The California Coastal Act requires preparation of a local coastal program (LCP) by local municipalities 

located in whole or in part in the coastal zone. The LCP consists of a land use plan and its 

implementing measures (e.g., zoning ordinances). The act requires the incorporation of its policies 

into local LCPs. Policies relevant to biological resources are listed below. 

• Coastal Act Section 30121 defines wetlands as “lands within the coastal zone which may be 

covered periodically or permanently with shallow water and include saltwater marshes, 

freshwater marshes, open or closed brackish water marshes, swamps, and mudflats.” 

• Coastal Act Section 30233 (a) states that the diking, filling, or dredging of wetlands can only be 

permitted for certain specified activities where there is no feasible less environmentally damaging 

alternative, and where feasible mitigation measures have been provided to minimize adverse 

effects. 

• Coastal Act Section 30107.5 defines an environmentally sensitive area as “any area in which 

plants or animal life or their habitats are either rare or especially valuable because of their special 

nature or role in an ecosystem and which could easily be disturbed or degraded by human 

activities.” 

• Coastal Act Section 30240 states that “environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be protected 

against any significant disruption of habitat values, and only uses dependent on those resources 

hall be allowed within those area.” This section also states that “development in areas adjacent 

to environmentally sensitive habitat areas and parks and recreational areas shall be sited and 

designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade those areas and shall be 

compatible with the continuance of those habitat and recreation areas.” 

Bay Conservation and Development Commission 

The McAteer-Petris Act, passed by the State of California in 1965, established the San Francisco Bay 

Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) as the state agency responsible for regulating 

development in and around San Francisco Bay and mandated the planning effort that resulted in 

development of the San Francisco Bay Plan (Bay Plan) (Association of Bay Area Governments 1969, 

as amended). The Bay Plan describes the values associated with the Bay and presents polices and 

planning maps to guide future uses of the Bay and its shoreline. Under the Bay Plan, priorities for 

suitable uses of the shoreline include ports, water-related industry, airports, wildlife refuges, and 

water-related recreation. The Bay Plan also proposes adding land to the Bay refuge system; 

encourages public access via marinas, waterfront parks, and beaches; and requires the provision of 

maximum access along the waterfront and certain shorelines, except where public uses conflict with 

other significant uses or where public use is inappropriate because of safety concerns. 

BCDC is responsible for implementing the policies of the Bay Plan. All projects proposing 

development within the Bay Area are required to apply to BCDC for a San Francisco Bay permit and 

to demonstrate compliance with the McAteer-Petris Act and the Bay Plan. 

The CZMA encourages states to voluntarily develop coastal zone management programs (CZMPs) to 

preserve and protect the unique features of each coastal area. Partly in response to these federal 

recommendations, the California Coastal Act of 1976 established the California Coastal Commission 

(CCC) and recognized the BCDC as the state agency with primary responsibility. 

Areas subject to jurisdiction of the BCDC extend to all areas of the Bay that are subject to tidal 

action, including a 100-foot shoreline band surrounding the Bay from the mean high-water mark. In 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.15 Biological Resources and Wetlands 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.15-8

addition, BCDC’s San Francisco Bay jurisdiction includes subtidal areas, intertidal areas, and tidal 

marsh areas that are between mean high tide and 5 ft (1.5 m) above the mean sea level. 

It is necessary to obtain BCDC approval prior to undertaking any of the following activities: 

• Filling: Placing solid material, building pile-supported or cantilevered structures, disposing of 

material, or permanently mooring vessels in the Bay or in certain tributaries of the Bay. 

• Dredging: Extracting material from the Bay bottom. 

• Shoreline Projects: Nearly all work, including grading, on the land within 100 ft (30 m) of the Bay 

shoreline. 

• Suisun Marsh Projects: Nearly all work, including land divisions, in the portion of the Suisun 

Marsh below the 10-foot-contour level. 

• Other Projects: Any filling, new construction, major remodeling, substantial change in use, or 

many land subdivisions in the Bay, along the shoreline, in salt ponds, duck hunting preserves, or 

other managed wetlands adjacent to the Bay. 

• Federal Projects: In addition to carrying out its regulatory authority under state law, the federal 

CZMA allows the BCDC to review federal projects and projects that require federal approval or 

are supported with federal funds. The BCDC carries out its "federal consistency" responsibilities 

by reviewing federal projects much like it does permit applications. However, the BCDC cannot 

require federal agencies to submit permit applications and cannot impose conditions in its federal 

consistency decisions. Nevertheless, federal agencies and applicants for federal approvals must 

provide the project details, data, and other material required by the form to ensure that the 

BCDC has the information it needs to evaluate federal projects. Work on a project needing BCDC 

authorization cannot begin until the necessary approval has been secured (San Francisco Bay 

Conservation and Development Commission 2006). 

B. METHOD OF EVALUATION OF IMPACTS 

Data Collection and Geographic Information System Mapping

The proposed HST Alignment Alternatives would cross a variety of biotic communities and could 

potentially result in impacts on many plant and wildlife species and many water resources. This 

discussion of impacts uses the plant taxonomy and nomenclature of Hickman (1993). The scientific 

nomenclature and common names of wildlife follow those of the most recent Special Animals List 

(California Department of Fish and Game 2006). 

A land cover map was developed using the best available data appropriate for a regional assessment 

of the study region. The GIS data mapping methods for this project used methods developed for 

other large projects in the region, including the Land Cover GIS Metadata that were developed to aid 

in the development of the Pacific Gas & Electric operation and maintenance HCPs currently being 

prepared for the San Joaquin Valley and the Bay Area. The coverage of these two HCPs overlaps in 

the study region. 

Data from eight sources were used to generate this land cover. 

• San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI) Baylands Dataset: The SFEI published the Baylands 

dataset in 1998 as part of EcoAtlas, a digital product that contains both historical and current 

information about the natural resources around the Bay Area. This dataset contains primarily 

wetlands that surround the San Francisco Bay and Suisun Marsh. These data support a longterm monitoring effort of baylands and associated habitats. SFEI used a number of sources to 

produce the Baylands dataset, including high-resolution color infrared photos (San Francisco 

Estuary Institute 1998). 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.15 Biological Resources and Wetlands 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.15-9

• California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF) Hardwood Rangeland Vegetation 

Dataset: The CDF Hardwood Rangeland Vegetation dataset comprises a series of maps of 

vegetation types for areas below 5,000 ft (1,524 m) in elevation. It was originally mapped in 

1981 from 1:24,000-scale aerial photographs and then updated using 1990 LANDSAT TM 

imagery. It consists of 82-ft (25-m) pixel spacing coded with a cover type. For woodland and 

forest cover types, each pixel also is coded with a canopy closure class. CDF maintains this 

dataset (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection 1994). 

• CDFG’s Wetland and Riparian Dataset: Ducks Unlimited produced the CDFG Wetland and 

Riparian dataset from multispectral satellite imagery to inventory wetlands, riparian woody areas, 

and surrounding land cover. This dataset is maintained by CDFG (California Department of Fish 

and Game 1997). Imagery from both the summer and winter was used to improve mapping 

accuracy. 

• California Gap Analysis Program Dataset: The California Gap dataset comprises land cover maps 

for 10 major regions of the state. It was derived from satellite imagery, vector overlays of 

existing vegetation and land use maps, and forest inventory data. Upland types were mapped 

with a minimum mapping unit of 247 ac (100 ha), major wetlands were mapped with a minimum 

mapping unit of 99 ac (40 ha), and smaller wetlands were encoded as attributes of upland 

polygons (Davis et al. 1998). 

• Important Farmland (DOC): For areas with modern soil surveys, this coverage maps grazing, 

farming, and urban lands (DOC 2000). It is based on aerial photographs of various scales and 

field reconnaissance and is updated biannually. Farmland and urban areas have a minimum 

mapping unit of 10 ac (4 ha), and urban is defined as a building density of at least 1 unit to 1.5 

ac (0.6 ha), or approximately six structures to a 10-ac (4 ha) parcel. Only the urban categories 

were used in the land cover layer from this data set. 

• Urban Boundaries (California Department of Water Resources [CDWR]): Only the urban land use 

types were used from this data set. The data cover a range of years (1994–1999) because 

individual counties are responsible for maintaining land use. These data were derived from aerial 

photo interpretation (scale not available) and extensive field visits. 

• California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF) Development Footprint Dataset: This 

dataset, published by CDF in 2003, is based on census block group data, land ownership, and 

urbanized-area data from the 2000 U.S. Census. It is supplemented with 1990 National 

Landcover Data from the USGS. CDF maintains this dataset (California Department of Forestry 

and Fire Protection 2003a). 

• CDF Land Cover Mapping and Monitoring Program Vegetation Dataset: The U.S. Forest Service 

prepared the source mapping for the CDF Land Cover Mapping and Monitoring Program (LCMMP) 

Vegetation Dataset between 1979 and 1981 (Parker and Matyas 1979). The mapping process 

involved photo interpretation of color infrared prints of multispectral satellite imagery acquired in 

the 1970s and updated in 1996. The CDF created the digital vegetation coverage by scanning 

the source maps. The minimum mapping unit of the CDF system is 2.5 ac (1 ha) (California 

Department of Forestry and Fire Protection 2003b). 

As part of the data assembly process, a classification scheme was created for the study region based 

on a review of the land cover categories in each data set and the requirements of the land cover–

based analyses in the study area. A hierarchical approach was used to assemble the land cover data 

for the study region. The various data sets described above were compiled in GIS. A classification 

system for land cover types was developed for the study area based on Holland (1986). This 

classification was designed to support the impact analysis for biological resources identified in the 

study area. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.15 Biological Resources and Wetlands 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.15-10

An aerial survey (gathered by plane, helicopter, and/or aerial images) was conducted along each 

alignment to supplement the GIS data and to verify the land cover types and extents identified during 

the mapping. The aerial survey was used to record small occurrences of land cover types not 

identified in the GIS analysis due to the minimum mapping unit data constraints in the GIS datasets 

(e.g., riparian and wetland habitats). 

Wetlands were identified using the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maintained by the USFWS. 

NWI digital data files are records of wetland locations and classification as developed by the USFWS. 

The NWI maps do not show all wetlands because data are derived from aerial photo interpretation 

with varying limitations due to scale, photo quality, inventory techniques, and other factors. 

Consequently, the maps tend to show wetlands that are readily photo-interpreted given consideration 

of photo and map scale. This level of information, though incomplete for some areas, provides a 

general overview of areas with potential sensitivity for impacts and where subsequent field work and 

wetland delineation would be conducted in the next phase of environmental evaluation. 

Digitized information for vernal pools was obtained from the CDFG and included USFWS Holland 

vernal pools coverage with density classes and supporting metadata file; Northern San Joaquin Valley 

vernal pool complexes identified by California State University, Chico; and a vernal pool species layer 

showing critical habitat for a suite of vernal pool species. 

Biological resources considered in the analysis of the proposed alternatives were compiled using the 

following sources: 

• California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB 2007) records. 

• California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS’s) (2001) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular 

Plants of California. 

• Draft East Contra Costa County HCP/ Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) and EIS/EIR 

(East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan Association 2005). 

• Recovery Plan for Vernal Pool Ecosystems of California and Southern Oregon (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, October 2005). 

• Recovery Plan for the California Red-Legged Frog (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2002). 

• Recovery Plan for Chaparral and Scrub Community Species East of San Francisco Bay, California 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, November 2002). 

• Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley, California (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 1998). 

• PG&E Operation and Maintenance HCPs for the San Joaquin Valley and Bay Area (in progress). 

• Recovery Plan for Serpentine Soil Species of the San Francisco Bay Area (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 1998). 

• Recovery Plan for Coastal Plants (in progress). 

• San Joaquin County Multi-Species Conservation Plan. 

• Information on wildlife movement corridors obtained from the Missing Linkages report prepared 

by the California Wilderness Coalition (2000). 

Biological Resources and Wetlands Impact Evaluation

The biological resources study area representing the potentially affected environment for the analysis 

and a representative impact area were consistently applied for each HST Alignment Alternative. The 

impact analysis area was 50 ft (15 m) width for aerial and at-grade configurations. No surface 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.15 Biological Resources and Wetlands 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.15-11

impact area was analyzed for tunnel sections because these sections would be underground, 

although tunnel portals were included as at-grade sections. The representative impact areas (project 

footprint) of proposed HST Alignments Alternatives were overlaid on the land cover data to determine 

the extent of land cover types potentially impacted. The acreages for each land cover type bisected 

by the alternative alignments were calculated. 

Because of the nonuniform coverage of the NWI data, the California Spatial Information Library’s 

Hydrographic database (water resources) was used to estimate the length of waters potentially 

impacted for each HST Alignment Alternative. This database provides the best indicator of the 

presence of wetlands for this program-level analysis. Comprehensive and complete information 

exists for the water resources and was readily applied for each alignment to determine the potential 

for impacting water resources. Vernal pools provide important habitat for many special-status plant 

and wildlife species and occur as small areas within grassland and other land cover types. GIS data 

for vernal pools were also used. At the project level, field surveys will provide areas of potential 

impact along the alignment alternatives carried forward for site-specific analysis. 

Special-Status Species and Habitat Impacts Evaluation

For each species with potential to occur in the study area, information was gathered on status, 

distribution, threats, population trends, and conservation and management efforts. Species that are 

included in the analysis of impacts from the proposed project include species: 

• Listed as threatened or endangered under ESA. 

• Proposed for listing as threatened or endangered under ESA. 

• Candidates for possible future listing as threatened or endangered under ESA (66 FR 54808, 

October 30, 2001). 

• Considered by CNPS to be “rare, threatened or endangered in California”. 

• Listed as threatened or endangered under CESA. 

• Fully protected in California (California Fish and Game Code Section 3511[birds], 4700 

[mammals], and 5050 [reptiles and amphibians]). 

• California species of special concern (CSC) (CDFG’s Special Animals List 2006). 

• Identified by CDFG and the Point Reyes Bird Observatory (PRBO) as a bird species of special 

concern in California (list developed in 2001 but not yet adopted). 

Species were analyzed if one of the alternative alignments occurred in the range for the species. 

Special-status plant and special-status wildlife tables were developed for those species that have a 

potential to occur in the study areas. Information in the tables includes scientific and common name, 

status, distribution, habitat requirements, blooming period (plants), and the alignment alternative(s) 

the species could occur in. The distributions of these species were identified based on a review of 

the documents and literature listed above. No field or onsite surveys were conducted to identify 

sensitive species for this Program EIR/EIS. 

The amount of suitable habitat (as identified by a land cover type) for special-status species that 

could be directly or indirectly affected by the HST Alignment Alternatives was calculated. Potential 

habitat fragmentation, impacts on wildlife movement corridors, and areas identified as critical habitat 

were also considered. 

Determining the extent of habitat for covered plant species is complicated because the exact location 

of all populations is not known, and a complete set of habitat attributes is often not known for most 

species. Therefore, the focus of the analysis concentrated on habitat known to be occupied and 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.15 Biological Resources and Wetlands 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.15-12

habitat that possesses the necessary characteristics for the species in question but that is not known 

to be occupied because of a lack of surveys or reporting. 

A habitat model was developed for covered plant species based on correlations among the known 

physical and biological attributes associated with each land cover type and the known biological and 

physical conditions that define each species’ habitat. Information from known occurrences was used 

to determine the existing distribution of the species and habitat attributes. 

C. CEQA SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA 

The significance criteria for identifying potential impacts on biological resources from proposed 

projects/actions are based on federal and state guidelines and general indicators of significance, 

including guidelines or criteria in NEPA, CEQA, CWA, CESA, ESA, and California Fish and Game Code. 

Site-specific criteria would be applied at the project level of environmental analysis when permits are 

being sought after a decision is made to proceed with a preferred alignment alternative, following 

this program-level analysis. 

Based on the presence or absence of sensitive resources, an alignment alternative may have a 

significant impact on biological resources if its implementation would result in any of the following: 

• Potential modification or destruction of habitat, movement/migration corridors, or breeding areas 

for endangered, threatened, rare, or other special-status species described above. 

• Potential loss of a substantial number of any species that could affect the abundance or diversity 

of that species beyond the level of normal variability. 

• Potential impacts on or measurable degradation of protected habitats, sensitive natural 

vegetation communities, wetlands, or other habitat areas plans, policies, or regulations. 

• Potential conflict with the provisions of an adopted HCP, NCCP2

, or other approved local, 

regional, or state HCP. 

3.15.2 Affected Environment 

A. STUDY AREA DEFINED 

The biological resources and wetlands study area for direct impacts is defined as 50 ft (15 m) on 

each side of the alignment. The study area for indirect impacts is 1,000 ft (305 m) in urban areas 

and 0.25 mile (0.41 km) in rural areas on each side of the alignment. The study area for direct 

impacts of stations is the station area, and the indirect impact study area for stations is 1,000 ft (305 

m) in urban areas and 0.25 mile (0.41 km) of alignment centerlines and around station and facility 

areas in undeveloped areas, including biologically sensitive locations. 

B. GENERAL DISCUSSION OF BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

The following is a brief description of the resources and land cover types studied. A more detailed 

description of these resources and the sources of information used to obtain the descriptions are 

provided in Appendix 3.15-A. In addition, this section discusses HCPs, critical habitat3

 areas, and 

other conservation plans or areas that could potentially be affected by one or more of the alignments 

discussed in this document. 

 

2

 The NCCP program of CDFG is an effort by the State of California and many private and public partners that takes a broad-based

ecosystem approach to planning for the protection and perpetuation of biological diversity. An NCCP identifies and provides for the 

regional or areawide protection of plants, animals, and their habitats, while allowing compatible and appropriate economic activity. 

CDFG and USFWS provide the necessary support, direction, and guidance to NCCP participants in these functions. 

3 Critical habitat refers to areas shown on maps developed by USFWS that provide habitat for threatened and endangered species. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.15 Biological Resources and Wetlands 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.15-13

Sensitive Vegetation Communities

Sensitive vegetation communities are natural communities (assemblages of species, both plant and 

wildlife, forming communities) and wildlife habitats that are unique, of relatively limited distribution in 

the region, or of particularly high wildlife value. Sensitive vegetation communities are afforded 

special protection by federal, state, and local regulations. 

Sensitive Plant Species

Sensitive plant species include plant species that have been afforded special status and/or recognition 

by federal or state resource agencies, as well as private conservation organizations, because of 

documented or perceived decline or limitation of population size or geographical extent. 

Sensitive Wildlife Species

Sensitive wildlife species include wildlife species that have been afforded special status by federal or 

state resource agencies, as well as private conservation organizations, because of documented or 

perceived decline or limitation of population size or geographical extent. Special-status species 

include wildlife, fish, or animals that are legally protected or that are otherwise considered sensitive 

by federal, state, or local resource conservation agencies and organizations. Special-status species 

include species listed as state and/or federal threatened or endangered species under ESA or CESA, 

those that have been proposed for listing, those considered as candidates for listing, and those 

identified by CDFG as a California species of special concern. 

Critical Habitats

Critical habitats are areas that are either occupied by species that are federally listed as threatened 

or endangered or areas that provide them with suitable habitat and within which are found the 

geographical and physical features that are essential to the conservation of the species. As defined 

under the ESA, conservation is defined as “any and all methods and procedures used to bring a 

species to recovery; the point at the protections of the ESA are no longer needed.” 

Core Areas for Recovery of Federally Listed Species

The USFWS has developed recovery plans for many federally listed species. In these plans, the 

USFWS has identified core areas for recovery of these listed species. These core areas are areas that 

provide essential habitat for these species and where recovery efforts will be focused. 

Wildlife Movement/Migration Corridors

Wildlife movement/migration corridors link together areas of wildlife habitat that are otherwise 

separated by rugged terrain, changes in vegetation, or human disturbance. The fragmentation of 

open space areas by urbanization tends to create isolated islands of wildlife habitat. The 

fragmentation of wildlife habitat into isolated islands is especially detrimental to threatened or 

endangered species that are subject to localized extinctions due to natural or human-induced causes. 

Wildlife movement and migration corridors allow for the recolonization of areas that may have 

experienced greatly reduced populations or localized extinctions. Wildlife movement/migration 

corridors also allow for genetic mixing and flow between otherwise segregated populations of a 

species. 

Wetlands and Other Waters of the United States

Wetlands and other waters of the United States, including lakes, rivers, and streams, are afforded 

protection under federal and state laws. Special aquatic resources, which include seasonal wetlands 

and vernal pools, are considered an important subset of these waters because of their importance to 

plant and wildlife species. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.15 Biological Resources and Wetlands 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.15-14

The following land cover types exist in the affected environment and were studied. 

Seasonal Wetland 

Seasonal wetlands support ponded or saturated soil conditions but generally only during winter and 

spring. The vegetation is composed of wetland generalists, such as hyssop loosestrife, cocklebur, 

Mediterranean barley, and Italian ryegrass, which typically occur in frequently disturbed sites, such as 

along streams. For the purposes of this analysis, vernal pools are included in this seasonal wetland 

category. Vernal pools include northern claypan and northern hardpan vernal pools as classified by 

Holland (1986). These communities are dominated by native annual species that germinate, grow, 

and flower as the pools dry up in the spring. Characteristic species include goldfields, downingia, 

meadowfoam, navarettia, and popcorn flower. 

Agriculture 

Agricultural lands within the project area may include orchards, vineyards, row crops, or grazing land. 

The land may or may not be flooded for part of the year. It may include land with very little 

vegetation present, including fallow or recently plowed fields. 

Open Water 

Open water land cover types include natural and human-made aquatic habitats that support 

submerged or floating vegetation, such as lakes, reservoirs, flood control basins, ponds (including 

stock ponds), sloughs, canals, and rivers. Many of the large water bodies include permanent and 

seasonal wetland and riparian communities along their edge. 

Urban/Developed 

Large areas of residential and commercial development occur throughout the study area and are 

present in some capacity along the alignment alternatives. In developed areas are small patches of 

disturbed open lands that are either unvegetated or vegetated with ruderal species. Because these 

areas are often fenced, occur in active commercial or residential areas, and are frequently disturbed, 

they are considered developed for the purposes of this analysis. Vegetation is restricted to 

landscaped areas and consists primarily of horticultural trees and shrubs, with finite areas of 

herbaceous flowering plants and turf grass. 

Permanent Freshwater Wetland 

This land cover type is similar to the Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh as classified by Holland 

(1986). Dominant vegetation in permanent freshwater wetlands includes cattails and tules and 

bulrushes. 

Grassland 

This land cover type is similar to the Non-Native Grassland as classified by Holland (1986). 

Nonnative grassland is a herbaceous community dominated by naturalized annual grasses with 

intermixed perennial and annual forbs. Annual grassland in the study area is likely to exhibit low 

levels of diversity and is dominated by the following species: ripgut brome, yellow star-thistle, Italian 

ryegrass, and wild oat. Some areas of annual grassland may also contain scattered oak woodlands 

and vernal pools. 

Shrubland 

This land cover type includes Northern Mixed Chaparral and Interior Coast Range Saltbush Scrub as 

classified by Holland (1986). It is made up of impenetrably dense, evergreen, leathery-leaved shrubs 

that are adapted to frequent fires, and it occurs on diverse substrates. Chaparral may be 

successional to conifer forests or oak woodlands, as tree seedlings can be found beneath the shrub 

canopies. 

Bay Waters 

Bodies of saltwater occurring in bays that are subject to tidal action. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.15 Biological Resources and Wetlands 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.15-15

Unvegetated Flats 

Tidal flats, mud banks, and sand bars visible above the water level during summer. 

Riparian Habitat 

This community is dominated by several willow species, including sandbar willow and arroyo willow. 

Some riparian areas have an understory of Himalayan blackberry. Other species often observed in 

riparian areas are giant reed, pampas grass, button willow, Fremont’s cottonwood, and interior live 

oak. 

Montane Hardwood Forest 

This land cover type is similar to the Broadleaved Upland Forest as classified by Holland (1986). 

Montane hardwood has a hardwood canopy layer with a sparse shrub layer. The dominant trees in 

the plan area are most likely canyon live oak, California Bay, and Pacific madrone. 

Managed Bay Marsh 

This land cover type is similar to the Northern Coastal Salt Marsh as classified by Holland (1986). It 

is found in areas of the Bay that are protected from the wave action and strong winds of the 

seashore. The soil is generally very wet and in some areas is periodically inundated with saltwater by 

tidal action. Plants often found in this habitat type include pickleweed, salt grass, and cord grass. 

Saline-Brackish Permanent Wetland 

This land cover type is similar to the Coastal Brackish Marsh as classified by Holland (1986). SalineBrackish Permanent Wetland habitat is defined to include portions of San Francisco, San Pablo, and 

Suisun Bays and the Delta that support saline-tolerant emergent wetland plant species in the 

intertidal zone or on lands that historically were subject to tidal exchange (i.e., diked wetlands). 

Oak Woodland/Foothill Pine 

This land cover type is similar to the Digger Pine-Oak Woodland as classified by Holland (1986). 

Dominant species include foothill pine and blue oak. Understories may be open and herbaceous or 

closed and shrubby. This type occurs on a variety of sites below the conifer forests in California. 

Associated tree species in the oak woodland/foothill pine classification include interior live oak and 

California buckeye. 

Salt Pond 

Salt production in the Bay area involves the use of a series of salt ponds. As the water moves from 

one pond to the next, evaporation causes successive ponds to become saltier. Plant and animal 

species found in a given salt pond are determined by the concentration of salt. 

Valley Oak Woodland 

Valley oak woodland as classified by Holland (1986) is strongly dominated by valley oak but may also 

contain blue oak, California sycamore, black walnut, and box elder. The canopy layer is typically 

open, forming a savanna structure rather than woodland. Associated understory shrubs include 

elderberry, poison oak, toyon, and California blackberry. The herb layer is often dominated by 

leymus grass and includes a variety of annual and perennial grasses and forbs. 

C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES IN THE BAY AREA TO CENTRAL VALLEY REGION 

The following is a brief discussion of resources for the topics described above. Figures 3.15-1 and 

3.15-2 show the general locations of sensitive habitat and wetlands in the study region. Figure 

3.15-3 illustrates the wildlife movement corridors in this region. 

San Francisco to San Jose Corridor

The San Francisco to San Jose Corridor includes the western portion of the San Francisco Bay Area 

from San Francisco (San Francisco County) south through eastern San Mateo County to San Jose 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.15 Biological Resources and Wetlands 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.15-16

(Santa Clara County). The San Francisco Bay and the Santa Clara Valley geophysical features 

dominate the areas traversed by this corridor. The major watersheds that correspond to these 

geophysical features are the San Francisco Bay watershed, including the Guadalupe River and Coyote 

Creek. Elevation along the proposed HST alignment alternatives in this region ranges from sea level 

to around 200 ft (61 m). 

Vegetation Communities 

Vegetation communities in this corridor include seasonal wetland, agriculture, open water, 

urban/developed, permanent freshwater wetlands, grasslands, shrubland, Bay waters, and 

unvegetated flats. 

Water Resources 

The Cowardin system to classify wetlands and deepwater habitat systems was developed for the 

USFWS in 1979. Under this system, wetlands are of two basic types: coastal (also known as tidal or 

estuarine wetlands) and inland (also known as nontidal, freshwater, or palustrine wetlands). The 

Cowardin system is hierarchical and includes several layers of detail for wetland classification, such as 

a subsystem of water flow, classes of substrate types, subclasses of vegetation types and dominant 

species, and flooding regimes and salinity levels for each system. This system is appropriate for an 

ecologically based understanding of wetland definition. Following the Cowardin classification system, 

the water resources that could occur along the San Francisco to San Jose Corridor include estuarine, 

lacustrine, palustrine, and riverine systems. Vernal pools may be present, particularly on clear lake 

soils fringing San Francisco Bay. 

Special-Status Species 

Special-Status Plants 

A number of special-status plant species could be present in the San Francisco to San Jose corridor. 

These include the San Mateo thorn-mint, Franciscan onion, bent-flowered fiddleneck, marsh 

sandwort, alkali milk-vetch, San Joaquin spearscale, Tiburon Indian paintbrush, Congdon’s tarplant, 

Presidio clarkia, San Francisco collinsia, Santa Clara Valley dudleya, Hoover’s button-celery, San 

Francisco gumplant, Marin western flax, Contra Costa goldfields, Crystal Springs lessingia, marsh 

microseris, white-rayed pentachaeta, slender-leaved pondweed, adobe sanicle, San Francisco 

campion, Santa Cruz microseris, saline clover, and San Francisco owl’s-clover. 

Special-Status Wildlife 

A number of special-status wildlife species could be present in the San Francisco to San Jose corridor. 

These include bay checkerspot butterfly, callippe silverspot, mission blue butterfly, San Bruno elfin 

butterfly, California red-legged frog, California horned lizard, northwestern pond turtle, San Francisco 

garter snake; nesting habitat for Alameda song sparrow, brown pelican, California black rail, 

California clapper rail, California least tern, Cooper’s hawk, double-crested cormorant, loggerhead 

shrike, long-eared owl, northern harrier, salt marsh common yellowthroat, short-eared owl, western 

burrowing owl, white-tailed kite, and yellow warbler; and salt marsh harvest mouse, salt marsh 

wandering shrew, San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat, and several species of bats.

Wildlife Movement Corridors 

The majority of the corridor is urbanized, and available data are limited on wildlife 

movement/migration corridors in this area. The riparian and stream corridors between the Santa 

Cruz Mountains and the San Francisco Bay provide corridors for wildlife movement. The western 

shore of the San Francisco Bay provides a critical movement corridor for nesting and foraging birds 

and other wildlife. The Wilderness Coalition has identified this as a critical linkage corridor (2000) 

(Figure 3.15-3).

Management Plans 

The USFWS has prepared the San Bruno Elfin and Mission Blue Butterflies Recovery Plan (1984). An 

HCP has been developed to allow development on San Bruno Mountain, while minimizing adverse 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Bay Area to Ce
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Bay Area to Cen
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Bay A

Wildlife 

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.15 Biological Resources and Wetlands 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.15-17

effects on the San Bruno elfin butterfly and other rare species in the area. The USFWS is developing 

a recovery plan for the Callippe silverspot butterfly. The Bay checkerspot butterfly, fountain thistle, 

Metcalf Canyon jewelflower, presidio clarkia, and white-rayed pentachaeta were included in the 

Recovery Plan for Serpentine Soil Species of the San Francisco Bay Area. 

The USFWS has prepared the Recovery Plan for the California Red-Legged Frog (2002). The 

objective of the plan is to reduce threats to California red-legged frogs and to improve the population 

status sufficient to warrant delisting. The USFWS has identified several core areas where recovery 

plans will be focused. The core areas are distributed throughout the historical and current range of 

the California red-legged frog and represent a system of areas that, when protected and managed, 

will allow for long-term viability of existing populations and reestablishment of populations in the 

historical range. 

The Tidal Marsh Ecosystem Recovery Plan, which is under development by USFWS, will include a 

number of federally listed species found in the San Francisco Bay, such as Suisun thistle, soft birdsbeak, California clapper rail, and salt marsh harvest mouse. The plan is expected to outline 

strategies for the recovery of these species. 

A Recovery Plan for the San Francisco Garter Snake (1985) was developed by the USFWS and is 

being updated. 

The USFWS is preparing the Recovery Plan for Coastal Plants. The showy Indian clover is listed in 

this recovery plan. 

A restoration plan, as part of the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project, is being developed by the 

California Coastal Conservancy, USFWS, and CDFG for the Cargill salt properties (South Bay Salt Pond 

Restoration Project) to restore salt marshes, as well as to provide public access and public recreation. 

Oakland to San Jose Corridor

The Oakland to San Jose corridor includes the eastern portion of the San Francisco Bay Area from 

Oakland in Alameda County south through Fremont and Milpitas to San Jose. The San Francisco Bay, 

the Santa Clara Valley, and the Diablo Range geophysical features dominate the areas traversed by 

this corridor. The major watersheds that correspond to these geophysical features are the San 

Francisco Bay watershed, including the Guadalupe River and Coyote Creek. Elevation along the 

proposed HST Alignment Alternatives in this region ranges from sea level to around 200 ft (61 m). 

Vegetation Communities 

Vegetation communities in this corridor include seasonal wetland, agriculture, open water, 

urban/developed, riparian habitat, grasslands, shrubland, Montane hardwood forest, managed Bay 

marsh, saline-brackish permanent wetland, and unvegetated flats. 

Water Resources 

Following the Cowardin classification system, the water resources that could occur in the Oakland to 

San Jose corridor include estuarine, lacustrine, palustrine, and riverine systems. Vernal pools may be 

present, especially on Clear Lake soils fringing San Francisco Bay.

Special-Status Species 

Special-Status Plants 

A number of special-status plant species could occur in the Oakland to San Jose corridor. These 

include the bent-flowered fiddleneck, alkali milk-vetch, brittlescale, San Joaquin spearscale, big-scale 

balsamroot, Tiburon Indian paintbrush, Congdon’s tarplant, Presidio clarkia, Hoover’s button-celery, 

Contra Costa goldfields, prostrate navarretia, hairless popcorn flower, slender–leaved pondweed, 

adobe sanicle, and saline clover. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.15 Biological Resources and Wetlands 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.15-18

Special-Status Wildlife 

A number of special-status wildlife species could occur in the Oakland to San Jose corridor. These 

include vernal pool tadpole shrimp, California red-legged frog, California horned lizard; northwestern 

pond turtle; nesting Alameda song sparrow, California black rail, California clapper rail, California 

least tern, Cooper’s hawk, double-crested cormorant, loggerhead shrike, long-eared owl, northern 

harrier, salt marsh common yellowthroat, short-eared owl, western burrowing owl, white-tailed kite, 

and yellow warbler; and salt marsh harvest mouse, salt marsh wandering shrew, San Francisco 

dusky-footed woodrat, and several species of bats. 

Special Management Areas 

The 30,000-ac (12,140-ha) Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge is the largest 

urban wildlife refuge in the nation. The refuge is located on the southeast side of the San Francisco 

Bay and preserves open bay, salt marsh, mud flats, vernal pools, and upland habitats. It is home to 

millions of shorebirds and waterfowl, with a total of 250 bird species, including the endangered 

California clapper rail, California least tern, and salt marsh harvest mouse. 

Wildlife Movement Corridors 

The riparian and stream corridors between the Diablo Range and the San Francisco Bay provide 

corridors for wildlife movement. The eastern shore of the San Francisco Bay provides movement 

corridors for small mammals, such as the salt marsh harvest mouse, as well as nesting and foraging 

birds. The Wilderness Coalition (2000) identified critical linkage corridors along the eastern shore of 

San Francisco, as well as a corridor linking the bay to the Diablo Range (Figure 3.15-3). 

Management Plans 

The restoration plan for the Cargill salt properties would be relevant to this corridor. Also, the 

Presidio clarkia was included in the Recovery Plan for Serpentine Soil Species of the San Francisco 

Bay Area.

San Jose to Central Valley Corridor

The San Jose to Central Valley corridor includes the Santa Clara Valley from San Jose south through 

Morgan Hill and Gilroy, and east through the Coast Range into the Central Valley. The major 

geophysical regions include the Santa Clara Valley, the southern reaches of the Diablo Range, and 

the Central Valley. The major watersheds include the San Francisco Bay watershed, including the 

Guadalupe River and Coyote Creek, the Pajaro River watershed, and the San Joaquin River 

watershed. Elevation along the San Jose to Central Valley corridor ranges from 150 ft (46 m) to 

1,200 ft (366 m). 

Vegetation Communities 

Vegetation communities in this corridor include seasonal wetland, agriculture, open water, 

urban/developed, riparian forest, nonnative annual grasslands, shrubland, Montane hardwood forest, 

oak woodland/foothill pine, and permanent freshwater wetland. 

Water Resources 

Following the Cowardin classification system, the water resources that could occur along the San Jose 

to the Central Valley corridor include lacustrine, palustrine, and riverine systems. Vernal pools may 

be present, especially on Central Valley terrace deposits.

Special-Status Species 

Special-Status Plants 

A number of special-status plant species could occur in the San Jose to Central Valley corridor. These 

include the bent-flowered fiddleneck, alkali milk-vetch, heartscale, brittlescale, San Joaquin 

spearscale, lesser saltscale, vernal pool smallscale, subtle orache, Tiburon Indian paintbrush, pink 

creamsacs, Lemmon’s jewelflower, coyote ceanothus, Congdon’s tarplant, Hoover’s spurge, robust 

spineflower, San Francisco collinsia, hispid bird’s-beak, Hoover’s cryptantha, Hospital Canyon 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.15 Biological Resources and Wetlands 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.15-19

larkspur, recurved larkspur, dwarf downingia, Santa Clara Valley dudleya, four-angled spikerush, 

round-leaved filaree, Delta button-celery, fragrant fritillary, Diablo helianthella, Loma Prieta hoita, 

Contra Costa goldfields, smooth lessingia, arcuate bush mallow, robust monardella, shining 

navarretia, Colusa grass, San Joaquin Valley orcutt grass, hairy orcutt grass, Metcalf Canyon jewelflower, most beautiful jewel-flower, showy Indian clover, saline clover, and caper-fruited 

tropidocarpum.

Special-Status Wildlife 

A number of special-status wildlife species could occur in the San Jose to Central Valley corridor. 

These include the bay checkerspot butterfly, conservancy fairy shrimp, longhorn fairy shrimp, valley 

elderberry longhorn beetle, vernal pool fairy shrimp, vernal pool tadpole shrimp, California red-legged 

frog, California tiger salamander, foothill yellow-legged frog, California horned lizard, giant garter 

snake, San Joaquin whipsnake, southwestern pond turtle; nesting habitat for American peregrine 

falcon, California horned lark, Cooper’s hawk, golden eagle, least Bell’s vireo, loggerhead shrike, longeared owl, northern harrier, prairie falcon, short-eared owl, Swainson’s hawk, tricolored blackbird, 

western burrowing owl, white-tailed kite, willow flycatcher, yellow-breasted chat, and yellow warbler; 

and American badger, San Joaquin kit fox, and bat species. 

Special Management Areas 

The Grasslands Ecological Area (GEA), which is located north, east, and south of the city of Los 

Banos in Merced County, encompasses approximately 240,000 ac (97,125 ha) and is the largest 

wetland complex in California. It also contains the largest block of contiguous wetlands remaining in 

the Central Valley.4

 The GEA is a non-jurisdictional, non-regulatory, generally designated area used 

by the USFWS to identify an area for priority purchase of public easements for wetland preservation 

and enhancement. The boundary of the GEA encompasses a substantial area that includes two 

federal wildlife refuges, a state park, state wildlife management areas, and a block of privately 

managed wetlands. Lands in the GEA managed by public agencies include the Great Valley 

Grasslands State Park; CDFG North Grasslands Wildlife Area, Los Banos Wildlife Area, and Volta 

Wildlife Area; and the San Luis National Wildlife Refuge Complex, which includes the San Luis 

National Wildlife Refuge (includes the Kesterson unit) and Merced National Wildlife Refuge. Also in 

the GEA are numerous privately owned parcels and a large number of waterfowl hunting clubs. 

Activities and land uses in the GEA include hunting, fishing and other active and passive recreation, 

agriculture, and residential and associated land uses. The GEA was designated a wetlands of 

worldwide importance under the Ramsar Treaty in 2005, one of four sites in California.5 This region 

is considered a critical component of the Central Valley wintering habitat for waterfowl and has been 

recognized as a resource of international significance. The USFWS manages the San Luis National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex to optimize wetland conditions for thousands of migratory birds that migrate 

through the Central Valley. 

Within the area identified as the GEA is the USFWS Grasslands Wildlife Management Area (WMA), 

which was established to protect wetlands. Land in the WMA is privately owned and some is 

protected by conservation easements. The size of this management area as of the last expansion in 

2005 is approximately 133,000 acres, with more than 70,000 acres protected through conservation 

agreements. Daily management of the easement area remains under private landowner control, the 

majority of the properties being managed for waterfowl hunting, cattle grazing, and agriculture. 

 

4

 Grasslands Water District, Land Use and Economics Study: Grasslands Ecological Area (July 2001), P. 2 (hereafter “Grassland 

Water District”). The area of the GEA increased from 180,000 ac to 240,000 ac to include the eastward expansion approved by 

USFWS between the publication of the Draft Program EIR/EIS and the Final Program EIR/EIS. 

5

 RAMSAR Report for the Grassland Ecological Area. Accessed at http://www.wetlands.org/reports/output.cfm. 2005. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.15 Biological Resources and Wetlands 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.15-20

Henry Coe State Park, which is located northeast of Gilroy, is the largest state park in northern 

California, encompassing more than 87,000 ac (35,208 ha) and includes the 23,300-ac (9,429-ha) 

Orestimba Wilderness area. Henry Coe State Park is home to a variety of special-status species and 

wildlife, including an estimated 675 vascular plants. Other state owned or managed lands within this 

corridor include the Cañada De Los Osos Ecological Reserve south of Henry Coe State Park, and the 

San Luis Reservoir State Recreation Area, O’Neill Forebay Wildlife Area, Upper and Lower Cottonwood 

Creek Wildlife Area, San Luis Reservoir Wildlife Area, and Pacheco State Park located around the San 

Luis Reservoir. 

The Nature Conservancy is pursuing conservation measures to protect more than 780 square mi 

(2,020 square km) of land in the Diablo Range to safeguard native species and natural habitats. This 

project was started in 1998 with the largest single private conservation project in northern California 

history—involving two ranches east of Mount Hamilton totaling 61,000 ac (24,686 ha). The Nature 

Conservancy’s goal is to protect some 200,000 ac (80,937 ha) by 2007. This area would protect the 

San Joaquin kit fox, the California red-legged frog, valley oak savannas, blue oak woodlands, and 

native fish and amphibians. 

Wildlife Movement Corridors 

The natural and agricultural lands located within the Santa Clara Valley provide a movement corridor 

from the San Francisco Bay Area to natural areas to the south. The Diablo Range provides 

movement corridors for a number of species between the Santa Clara Valley and the Central Valley. 

Major drainages, such as Coyote Creek, the Pajaro River, and the Tres Pinos Creek, also provide 

wildlife movement corridors. On the west side of the Central Valley is a relatively extensive strip of 

annual (nonnative) grassland that lies between the irrigated fields and orchards of the valley floor 

and the oak and pine woodlands of the Diablo Range. This strip is about 10 mi (16 km) wide and 

provides a movement corridor for the San Joaquin kit fox. 

Management Plans 

The USFWS adopted the Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley in 1998. The 

recovery plan was developed to delineate reasonable actions that would be required to recover and 

protect listed species found in the San Joaquin Valley. The plan covers 34 species of plants and 

animal, 11 of which are federally listed species: six plant species and five wildlife species. The 

remaining 23 species are either candidate species or species of special concern. The ultimate goal of 

the recovery plan is to delist the 11 listed species and ensure the long-term conservation of the 23 

candidate and species of special concern. The California jewelflower has been included in this 

management plan. 

A draft recovery plan has been developed for the least Bell’s vireo, which outlines measures to help in 

the recovery of the species. 

The USFWS developed the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle Recovery Plan in 1984. The USFWS 

has also adopted Conservation Guidelines for Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (1999). 

The USFWS prepared the Recovery Plan for Vernal Pool Ecosystems in California (2005), which 

outlines strategies for the recovery and conservation of vernal pools and the federally listed plant and 

wildlife species that occur in these ecosystems. The USFWS identified vernal pool regions throughout 

California that are based on the geography and/or ecology of one or more of the vernal pool species 

identified in the recovery plan. Within each of the regions, core areas were identified where recovery 

actions will be focused because they provide the necessary features that are important to the 

recovery of a species. The hairy orcutt grass, Hoover’s spurge, San Joaquin Valley orcutt grass, 

Colusa grass, and succulent owl’s clover have all been listed under this management plan. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.15 Biological Resources and Wetlands 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.15-21

The Recovery Plan for Serpentine Soil Species of the San Francisco Bay Area would be relevant to 

this corridor. The coyote ceanothus, Metcalf Canyon jewelflower, and Santa Clara Valley dudleya 

have been listed under this management plan. 

The Recovery Plan for Coastal Plants that the USFWS is preparing would be relevant for this corridor. 

The showy Indian clover is listed under this management plan. 

East Bay to Central Valley Corridor

The East Bay to Central Valley corridor includes the East San Francisco Bay near Union City (Alameda 

County) east to the Livermore Valley (Pleasanton and Livermore), and across Patterson Pass into the 

Central Valley. The dominant geophysical features traversed by this corridor include the San 

Francisco Bay, the Diablo Range, and the Central Valley. Major watersheds include the San Francisco 

Bay watershed, the Las Positas watershed, and the San Joaquin River watershed. Elevation along 

the East Bay to Central Valley Corridor ranges from 100 ft (30 m) to 1,300 ft (396 m). 

Vegetation Communities 

Vegetation communities in this corridor include seasonal wetland, agriculture, open water, 

urban/developed, riparian habitat, grasslands, shrubland, oak woodland/foothill pine, and permanent 

freshwater wetland.

Water Resources 

Following the Cowardin classification system, the water resources that could occur along the East Bay 

to the Central Valley corridor include estuarine, lacustrine, palustrine, and riverine systems. Vernal 

pools may be present, especially on Clear Lake soils fringing San Francisco Bay, or on Central Valley 

terrace deposits.

Special-Status Species 

Special-Status Plants 

A number of special-status plant species could occur in the East Bay to Central Valley corridor. These 

include the bent-flowered fiddleneck, Suisun Marsh aster, alkali milk-vetch, heartscale, brittlescale, 

San Joaquin spearscale, lesser saltscale, big-scale balsamroot, big tarplant, Congdon’s tarplant, 

slough thistle, Mt. Hamilton thistle, hispid bird’s-beak, palmate-bracted bird’s beak, Hospital Canyon 

larkspur, recurved larkspur, round-leaved filaree, Hoover’s button-celery, Delta button-celery, 

diamond-petaled California poppy, Diablo helianthella, rose-mallow, Contra Costa goldfields, 

legenere, showy madia, robust monardella, prostrate navarretia, hairless popcorn flower, most 

beautiful jewel-flower, saline clover, caper-fruited tropidicarpum, and Greene’s tuctoria. 

Special-Status Wildlife 

A number of special-status wildlife species could occur in the East Bay to Central Valley corridor. 

These include the longhorn fairy shrimp, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, vernal pool fairy shrimp; 

vernal pool tadpole shrimp, California red-legged frog, California tiger salamander, western 

spadefoot, Alameda whipsnake, California horned lizard, giant garter snake, northwestern pond 

turtle, San Joaquin whipsnake; nesting habitat for American peregrine falcon, California horned lark, 

Cooper’s hawk, golden eagle, loggerhead shrike, long-eared owl, northern harrier, prairie falcon, 

short-eared owl, Swainson’s hawk, tricolored blackbird, western burrowing owl, white-tailed kite, and 

yellow warbler; and American badger, San Joaquin kit fox, and several bat species. 

Special Management Areas 

The Mount Hamilton Project of The Nature Conservancy encompasses a 1,560-sq-mi (2,511-sq-km) 

area in this region that extends from south of the Pacheco Pass to north of the Altamont Pass, with 

large parts of the area protected by conservation easements. The East Bay Regional Park District 

(EBRPD) encompasses 98,000 ac (39,659 ha) of mostly undeveloped, natural, open space parklands 

in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. EBRPD lands include grassland, shrubland, woodland, forest, 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.15 Biological Resources and Wetlands 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.15-22

lake, shoreline, riparian, and wetland environments, which provide habitat for plants and wildlife. 

The EACCS provide a blueprint for conservation in East Alameda County and streamline the 

environmental permitting process by providing guidance to project proponents on where and how to 

focus mitigation efforts to address potential adverse effects on species resulting from future 

development and infrastructure improvements. The EACCS facilitate ongoing conservation programs 

by providing a coordinated approach supported by local stakeholders and regulatory agencies. 

Wildlife Movement Corridors 

On the west side of the Central Valley is a relatively extensive strip of annual (nonnative) grassland 

that lies between the irrigated fields and orchards of the valley floor and the oak and pine woodlands 

of the Diablo Range. This strip is about 10 mi (16 km) wide and provides a movement corridor for 

the San Joaquin kit fox. 

Management Plans 

The San Francisco Public Utility Commission (SFPUC) is developing the Alameda Watershed Habitat 

Conservation Plan to ensure that its operation activities comply with the ESA. The plan covers 

47,800 ac (19,344 ha) in Alameda County, including the entire 36,816 ac (14,898 ha) of land owned 

by the SFPUC. 

San Joaquin County has developed the San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan. 

The purpose of the plan is to provide a strategy to balance for the long-term management of plant, 

fish, and wildlife species, especially those that are state or federally listed, and the need to 

accommodate for controlled development. 

The USFWS has developed the Draft Recovery Plan for Chaparral and Scrub Community Species East 

of San Francisco Bay, California (2002). Species covered under this recovery plan include the 

Alameda whipsnake and Berkeley kangaroo rat. 

The Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley would be relevant to this corridor. 

The palmate-bracted bird’s-beak is listed under this management plan. 

The Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle Recovery Plan and Conservation Guidelines for Valley 

Elderberry Longhorn Beetle would be relevant to this alignment. 

San Francisco Bay Crossings

Existing Conditions 

The San Francisco Bay Crossings include the San Francisco Bay Area from San Francisco east to 

Oakland and the San Francisco Bay Area from North Fair Oaks (San Mateo County) east to Union 

City. The major geophysical feature traversed is the San Francisco Bay and the major watershed is 

the San Francisco Bay watershed. Elevation ranges from sea level to 50 ft (15 m) 

Vegetation Communities 

Vegetation communities related to the Bay crossings include seasonal wetland, agriculture, open 

water, urban/developed, saline-brackish permanent wetland, nonnative grasslands, shrubland, oak 

woodland/foothill pine, Montane hardwood forest, salt pond, managed Bay marsh, and unvegetated 

flats.

Water Resources 

Following the Cowardin classification system, the water resources that could occur along the San 

Francisco Bay Crossing corridor include estuarine and palustrine systems. Vernal pools may be 

present, especially on Clear Lake soils fringing San Francisco Bay.
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.15 Biological Resources and Wetlands 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.15-23

Special-Status Species 

Special-Status Plants 

A number of special-status plant species could occur in the area of the San Francisco Bay Crossings. 

These include the San Mateo thorn-mint, Franciscan onion, bent-flowered fiddleneck, coastal marsh 

milk-vetch, alkali milk-vetch, brittlescale, San Joaquin spearscale, big-scale balsamroot, Congdon’s 

tarplant, Presidio clarkia, San Francisco collinsia, Point Reyes bird’s-beak, Hoover’s button-celery, San 

Francisco gumplant, Marin western flax, Contra Costa goldfields, Crystal Springs lessingia, Prostrate 

navarretia, white-rayed pentachaeta, Adobe sanicle, California seablite, saline clover, and San 

Francisco owl’s-clover. 

Special-Status Wildlife 

A number of special-status wildlife species could occur in the area of the San Francisco Bay 

Crossings. These include northwestern pond turtle; nesting habitat for Alameda song sparrow, 

brown pelican, California black rail, California clapper rail, California least tern, Cooper’s hawk, 

double-crested cormorant, long-eared owl, loggerhead shrike, northern harrier, saltmarsh common 

yellowthroat, short-eared owl, western burrowing owl, white-tailed kite, and yellow warbler; and salt 

marsh harvest mouse, salt marsh wandering shrew, San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat, and several 

bat species. 

Special Management Areas 

The South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project is a 25-sq-mi (65-sq-km) project to restore the wetlands 

from the San Mateo Bridge to the southern edge of the Bay. The California Coastal Conservancy, 

USFWS, and CDFG initiated this project in 2003. The EBRPD encompasses 98,000 ac (39,659 ha) of 

mostly undeveloped, natural, open space parklands in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. EBRPD 

lands include grassland, shrubland, woodland, forest, lake, shoreline, riparian, and wetland 

environments, which provide habitat for plants and wildlife. 

The Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge is located on the southern reaches of 

the San Francisco Bay. The refuge is 30,000 ac (12,140 ha) of open bay, salt marsh, mud flats, 

vernal pools, and upland habitats. 

Wildlife Movement Corridors 

The San Francisco Bay Area provides a migration corridor for a many species of birds and aquatic 

species, such as Pacific herring, steelhead, Coho salmon, and Chinook salmon. 

Management Plans 

The restoration plan for the Cargill salt properties would be relevant to the crossings. Also, the 

Recovery Plan for Serpentine Soil Species of the San Francisco Bay Area (1998) would be relevant to 

this corridor. The Presidio clarkia, fountain thistle, San Mateo woolly sunflower, and white-rayed 

pentachaeta are listed under this management plan. 

Central Valley Corridor

The Central Valley corridor includes the Central Valley from Chowchilla (Madera County) and Merced 

(Merced County) north through Modesto (Stanislaus County) to Stockton (San Joaquin County). The 

major geophysical feature traversed by this corridor is the Central Valley. The major watershed 

traversed by this corridor is the San Joaquin River watershed. Elevation range for the Central Valley 

alternative ranges from 30 ft (9 m) to 250 ft to (76 m). 

Vegetation Communities 

Vegetation communities in this corridor include seasonal wetland, agriculture, open water, 

urban/developed, riparian habitat, grasslands, shrubland, oak woodland/foothill pine, Montane 

hardwood forest, Valley oak woodland, and permanent freshwater wetland.
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.15 Biological Resources and Wetlands 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.15-24

Water Resources 

Following the Cowardin classification system, the water resources that could occur along the Central 

Valley corridor include lacustrine, palustrine, and riverine systems. Vernal pools may be present, 

especially on Central Valley terrace deposits.

Special-Status Species 

Special-Status Plants 

A number of special-status plant species could occur in the Central Valley corridor. These include the 

alkali milk-vetch, heartscale, brittlescale, San Joaquin spearscale, lesser saltscale, vernal pool 

smallscale, subtle orache, big tarplant, Hoover’s spurge, hispid bird’s-beak, palmate-bracted bird’s 

beak, Hoover’s cryptantha, recurved larkspur, dwarf downingia, four-angled spikerush, round-leaved 

filaree, Delta button-celery, Boggs Lake hedge-hyssop, legenere, shining navarretia, prostrate 

navarretia, Colusa grass, San Joaquin Valley orcutt grass, hairy orcutt grass, and caper-fruited 

tropidicarpum. 

Special-Status Wildlife 

A number of special-status wildlife species could occur in the Central Valley corridor. These include 

the conservancy fairy shrimp, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, vernal pool fairy shrimp, vernal pool 

tadpole shrimp, California tiger salamander, giant garter snake, southwestern pond turtle; nesting 

habitat for California horned lark, Cooper’s hawk, loggerhead shrike, northern harrier, short-eared 

owl, Swainson’s hawk, tricolored blackbird, western burrowing owl, and white-tailed kite; and 

American badger, riparian brush rabbit, riparian woodrat, San Joaquin kit fox, and several bat 

species. 

Wildlife Movement Corridors 

The San Joaquin River and its tributaries provide wildlife movement corridors in the Central Valley. 

The natural and agricultural areas along the eastern side of the Central Valley provide a movement 

corridor. The USFWS has identified areas where linkage corridors should be established through the 

acquisition and management of conservation easements, incentive programs to preserve suitable 

habitat, zoning, acquisition, and other mechanisms to prevent isolation of natural habitats (U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 1998). These linkage corridors would connect the remaining habitat on the 

valley floor with habitat in the foothills surrounding the San Joaquin Valley. One such identified 

linkage corridor is in the vicinity of Sandy Mush Road in Merced County. This linkage corridor would 

connect the national wildlife refuges and state wildlife areas located in the GSA in Merced County 

with the northeastern edges of the San Joaquin Valley and with natural areas farther south in Madera 

and Fresno Counties. In conjunction with the linkage corridor, the USFWS has identified the natural 

lands and compatible farmlands in eastern Merced County as areas that should be maintained and 

preserved for San Joaquin kit fox dispersal habitat. These areas encompass a variety of habitats, 

including grasslands, vernal pool systems, wetlands, oak woodlands, and farmlands. 

Management Plans 

The Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley would be relevant to this corridor. 

The California jewelflower and palmate-bracted bird’s beak are included in this management plan. 

The Recovery Plan for Vernal Pool Ecosystems in California (2005) would be relevant to this corridor. 

Hairy orcutt grass, Hoover’s spurge, San Joaquin Valley orcutt grass, succulent owl’s-clover, and 

Colusa grass have been included in this management plan. 

The San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan and the Valley Elderberry Longhorn 

Beetle Recovery Plan and Conservation Guidelines for Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle would be 

relevant to this corridor. 

The University of California, Merced, is in the process of developing a management plan to conserve 

habitat for special-status plant and animal species, while allowing for the development of the 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.15 Biological Resources and Wetlands 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.15-25

university and supporting community. Covered species include succulent owl’s clover, Hoover’s 

spurge, Colusa grass, San Joaquin orcutt grass, hairy orcutt grass, Hartweg’s golden sunburst, green 

tuctoria, conservancy fairy shrimp, vernal pool fairy shrimp, vernal pool tadpole shrimp, midvalley 

fairy shrimp, California tiger salamander, and San Joaquin kit fox. 

3.15.3 Environmental Consequences 

A. NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE 

The No Project Alternative assumes that, in addition to existing conditions, additional transportation 

improvements would be developed. The transportation improvements include projects that are 

programmed or funded to 2030 (as described in Chapter 2). 

It was not possible as part of this study to identify or quantify the impacts on biological resources 

that would occur as a result of the transportation improvements in the No Project Alternative. For 

existing transportation facilities to be improved, impacts on biological resources have previously been 

addressed, and only small additional or increased impacts are expected from the future 

transportation improvement included in the No Project Alternative. In some cases, widening of 

existing corridors or similar improvements could result in additional impacts on biological resources. 

B. HIGH-SPEED TRAIN ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES 

The proposed HST system would generally be located in or adjacent to existing transportation rightsof-way, such as highways or railroads, or would be in tunnels or elevated through mountain passes 

and sensitive habitat areas. HST Alignment Alternatives would include tunnels, which could avoid or 

substantially reduce surface impacts on sensitive biological resources, except at tunnel portal areas. 

Bridges across water bodies would use materials and designs to minimize the number of 

piles/columns in the water. 

The potential impacts on biological resources and water resources/wetlands that could result from 

the HST Alignment Alternatives and station location options are summarized in Table 3.15-1. For 

more detail related to impacts of each alignment alternative segment see Appendix 3.15. 

As discussed earlier, all comparisons are based on information available from existing databases. 

Field surveys, which would be performed during a subsequent environmental review, would provide 

more detailed information and could indicate an increase or a decrease in the potential impacts on 

biological resources from a proposed HST system, particularly along alignment alternatives that have 

not previously been the focus of field surveys or mapping by any of the regulatory agencies (such as 

CDFG or USFWS). 

The discussion of impacts for the alignment alternatives is structured in the following manner: (1) 

impacts on sensitive vegetation communities/habitats; (2) impacts on special-status species, 

including marine/anadromous species; (3) impacts on wildlife movement corridors; (3) impacts on 

wetlands and non-wetland waters; and (4) conflicts with conservation plans or special management 

plans. 

Figure 3.15-1 illustrates the potential locations of special-status species in relation to the HST 

Alignment Alternatives. Sensitive vegetation communities and those species that are federally or 

state listed as threatened or endangered would be of special concern because of the protection 

afforded them under the ESA and CESA. Additionally, species with limited habitats or ranges, such as 

aquatic species and butterfly species, would also be of special concern because of the adverse effects 

that even small impacts on their habitat could cause. Several special-status species, including the 

California red-legged frog and San Joaquin kit fox, would also be affected. Sensitive vegetation 

communities include seasonal and permanent freshwater wetlands, saline-brackish permanent 

wetlands, permanent freshwater marsh, riparian, Bay waters, eelgrass habitat, and oak woodlands. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.15 Biological Resources and Wetlands 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.15-26

Figure 3.15-2 illustrates the potential locations of non–jurisdictional waters and wetlands in relation 

to the HST Alignment Alternatives. The alignment alternatives would likely impact wetlands and 

waters at a level that would require an Individual Permit and Section 404(b)(1) Analysis of 

Alternatives, which would be addressed in a subsequent environmental review. 

The HST Alignment Alternatives would have potential to affect wildlife movement/migration corridors 

throughout the study area. Figure 3.15-3 illustrates the known wildlife movement corridors 

throughout the study region and general areas where the movement corridors cross proposed HST 

alignment alternatives. 

There are several HCPs and special management areas that would be affected by the HST Alignment 

Alternatives, including the Don Edwards National Wildlife Refuge along San Francisco Bay. 

During construction, earthwork for the HST Alignment Alternatives would involve excavations and fill 

construction, producing potential erosion and sedimentation problems if not properly designed, 

constructed, and maintained. Stockpiles of excavated materials and imported fill, if properly 

managed, should not be sources of sedimentation. If, however, construction-related erosion and 

sedimentation were to occur, it could result in impacts on surface water quality and in potential 

impacts on biological resources. Dewatering operations for excavations could also result in discharge 

of sediments or pollutants to surface water bodies, thereby degrading water quality and affecting 

biological resources. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.15 Biologica

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 3.15-1. Biological Resource Summary Data Table for 

Alignments and Station Location Option Comparisons 

Corridor 

Possible Alignments Alignment Alternative Number of Special- Status Plant Species Number of Special- Status Wildlife Species Wildlife Movement Corridor Non-Wetland Waters in Linear Feet W

(

San Francisco to San Jose: Caltrain 

1 of 1 San Francisco to 

Dumbarton 

19 29 West side of San Francisco 

Bay and riparian and stream corridors 

590 

1 of 1 Dumbarton to 

San Jose 

5 19 Riparian and stream 

corridors 

672 

Station Location OptionsTransbay Transit Center 1 - West side of San Francisco 

Bay and riparian and stream corridors 

- 

4th and King (Caltrain) 1 - West side of San Francisco 

Bay and riparian and stream corridors 

- 

Millbrae/SFO - - West side of San Francisco 

Bay and riparian and stream corridors 

- 

Redwood City (Caltrain) - - West side of San Francisco 

Bay and riparian and stream corridors 

- 

Palo Alto (Caltrain) - 1 Riparian and stream 

corridors 

- 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.15 Biologica

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Corridor 

Possible Alignments Alignment Alternative Number of Special- Status Plant Species Number of Special- Status Wildlife Species Wildlife Movement Corridor Non-Wetland Waters in Linear Feet W

(

Oakland to San Jose: Niles/I880

1 of 2 West Oakland to 

Niles Junction 

5 23 East side of San Francisco 

Bay and riparian and stream corridors 

455 

12th Street/City 

Center to Niles Junction 

6 23 East side of San Francisco 

Bay and riparian and stream corridors 

455 

1 of 2 Niles Junction to 

San Jose via Trimble 

6 25 East side of San Francisco 

Bay and riparian and stream corridors 

958 

Niles Junction to San Jose via I880 

5 25 East side of San Francisco 

Bay and riparian and stream corridors 

1,080 

Station Location OptionsWest Oakland/7th Street - - East side of San Francisco 

Bay and riparian and stream corridors 

- 

12th Street/City Center - - East side of San Francisco 

Bay and riparian and stream corridors 

- 

Coliseum/Airport - - East side of San Francisco 

Bay and riparian and stream corridors 

482 

Union City (BART) - - East side of San Francisco 

Bay and riparian and stream corridors 

- 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.15 Biologica

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Corridor 

Possible Alignments Alignment Alternative Number of Special- Status Plant Species Number of Special- Status Wildlife Species Wildlife Movement Corridor Non-Wetland Waters in Linear Feet W

(

Fremont (Warm Springs) - - East side of San Francisco 

Bay and riparian and stream corridors 

- 

San Jose to Central Valley: Pacheco Pass

1 of 1 Pacheco 23 27 Between Santa Clara Valley 

and San Joaquin Valley 

1,960 

1 of 3 Henry Miller 

(UPRR Connection) 

25 34 Along west side of San 

Joaquin Valley and San Joaquin River 

10,588 

Henry Miller (BNSF Connection)

25 34 Along west side of San 

Joaquin Valley and San Joaquin River 

10,312 

GEA North 22 34 Along west side of San 

Joaquin Valley and San Joaquin River 

6,771 

Station Location OptionsSan Jose (Diridon) 1 1 Between Santa Clara Valley 

and San Joaquin Valley 

- 

Morgan Hill (Caltrain) - - Between Santa Clara Valley 

and San Joaquin Valley 

- 

Gilroy (Caltrain) 1 - Between Santa Clara Valley 

and San Joaquin Valley 

- 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.15 Biologica

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Corridor 

Possible Alignments Alignment Alternative Number of Special- Status Plant Species Number of Special- Status Wildlife Species Wildlife Movement Corridor Non-Wetland Waters in Linear Feet W

(

East Bay to Central Valley: Altamont Pass 

1 of 4 I-680/ 580/UPRR 24 29 Along west side of San 

Joaquin Valley; riparian and stream corridors 

2,380 

I-580/ UPRR 24 29 Along west side of San 

Joaquin Valley; riparian and stream corridors 

2,612 

Patterson Pass/UPRR 

20 28 Along west side of San 

Joaquin Valley; riparian and stream corridors 

1,371 

UPRR 20 28 Along west side of San 

Joaquin Valley; riparian and stream corridors 

1,152 

1 of 4 Tracy Downtown 

(BNSF Connection) 

18 27 Along west side of San 

Joaquin Valley; riparian and stream corridors 

6,291 

Tracy ACE Station (BNSF Connection) 

21 27 Along west side of San 

Joaquin Valley; riparian and stream corridors 

7,678 

Tracy ACE Station (UPRR Connection) 

20 27 Along west side of San 

Joaquin Valley; riparian and stream corridors 

5,326 

Tracy Downtown (UPRR Connection) 

22 27 Along west side of San 

Joaquin Valley; riparian and stream corridors 

7,504 

2 of 2 East Bay 

Connections 

- - East side of San Francisco 

Bay and riparian and stream corridors 

376 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.15 Biologica

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Corridor 

Possible Alignments Alignment Alternative Number of Special- Status Plant Species Number of Special- Status Wildlife Species Wildlife Movement Corridor Non-Wetland Waters in Linear Feet W

(

Station Location OptionsPleasanton (I-680/Bernal Rd) - - Along west side of San 

Joaquin Valley; riparian and stream corridors 

- 

Pleasanton (BART) - - Along west side of San 

Joaquin Valley; riparian and stream corridors 

338 

Livermore (Downtown) - - Along west side of San 

Joaquin Valley; riparian and stream corridors 

- 

Livermore (I-580) - - Along west side of San 

Joaquin Valley; riparian and stream corridors 

- 

Livermore (Greenville Road/UPRR) - - Along west side of San 

Joaquin Valley; riparian and stream corridors 

- 

Livermore (Greenville Road/I-580) - - Along west side of San 

Joaquin Valley; riparian and stream corridors 

72 

Tracy (Downtown) - - Along west side of San 

Joaquin Valley; riparian and stream corridors 

- 

Tracy (ACE) - - Along west side of San 

Joaquin Valley; riparian and stream corridors 

- 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.15 Biologica

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Corridor 

Possible Alignments Alignment Alternative Number of Special- Status Plant Species Number of Special- Status Wildlife Species Wildlife Movement Corridor Non-Wetland Waters in Linear Feet W

(

San Francisco Bay Crossings 

1 of 2 Trans Bay 

Crossing – Transbay Transit Center 

1 - West side of San Francisco 

Bay and riparian and stream corridors 

- 

Trans Bay Crossing – 4th & 

King 

1 - West side of San Francisco 

Bay and riparian and stream corridors 

- 

1 of 6 Dumbarton (High 

Bridge) 

15 21 East and west shores of San 

Francisco Bay 

2,361 

Dumbarton (Low Bridge) 

15 21 East and west shores of San 

Francisco Bay 

2,361 

Dumbarton (Tube) 

15 21 East and west shores of San 

Francisco Bay 

2,361 

Fremont Central Park (High Bridge) 

16 23 East and west shores of San 

Francisco Bay 

3,117 

Fremont Central Park (Low Bridge) 

16 23 East and west shores of San 

Francisco Bay 

3,117 

Fremont Central Park (Tube) 

16 23 East and west shores of San 

Francisco Bay 

3,117 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.15 Biologica

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Corridor 

Possible Alignments Alignment Alternative Number of Special- Status Plant Species Number of Special- Status Wildlife Species Wildlife Movement Corridor Non-Wetland Waters in Linear Feet W

(

Station Location OptionsUnion City (Shinn) - - East and west shores of San 

Francisco Bay 

- 

Central Valley 1 of 6 BNSF – UPRR 22 22 East-west linkage corridor 

between valley floor natural lands and natural lands along east side of San Joaquin valley 

10,137 

 BNSF 22 22 East-west linkage corridor 

between valley floor natural lands and natural lands along east side of San Joaquin valley 

10,528 

 UPRR N/S 22 21 None 7,161  BNSF Castle 19 22 East-west linkage corridor 

between valley floor natural lands and natural lands along east side of San Joaquin valley 

9,094 

 UPRR – BNSF 

Castle 

22 22 East-west linkage corridor 

between valley floor natural lands and natural lands along east side of San Joaquin valley 

7,790 

 UPRR – BNSF 25 22 East-west linkage corridor 

between valley floor natural lands and natural lands along east side of San Joaquin valley 

8,833 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.15 Biologica

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Corridor 

Possible Alignments Alignment Alternative Number of Special- Status Plant Species Number of Special- Status Wildlife Species Wildlife Movement Corridor Non-Wetland Waters in Linear Feet W

(

Station Location OptionsModesto (Downtown) - 1 East-west linkage corridor 

between valley floor natural lands and natural lands along east side of San Joaquin valley 

- 

Briggsmore (Amtrak) - - East-west linkage corridor 

between valley floor natural lands and natural lands along east side of San Joaquin valley 

- 

Merced (Downtown) - 1 East-west linkage corridor 

between valley floor natural lands and natural lands along east side of San Joaquin valley 

- 

Castle AFB - - East-west linkage corridor 

between valley floor natural lands and natural lands along east side of San Joaquin valley 

315 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.15 Biological Resources and Wetlands 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.15-35

San Francisco to San Jose Corridor

San Francisco to Dumbarton Alignment Alternative 

The San Francisco to Dumbarton alignment alternative could have direct impacts on 1.97 ac (0.8 ha) 

of grasslands, 6.17 ac (2.5 ha) of open waters, 0.84 ac (0.34 ha) of saline-brackish permanent 

wetlands, 5.01 ac (2.03 ha) of seasonal wetlands, 0.41 ac (0.17 ha) of unvegetated flats, and 125.27 

ac (50.7 ha) of urban/other developed areas. This alignment could have indirect impacts on 18.78 ac 

(7.6 ha) of bay waters, 49.60 ac (20.07 ha) of grasslands, 120.21 ac (48.65 ha) of open waters, 

15.05 ac (6.09 ha) of saline-brackish permanent wetlands, 137.95 ac (55.83 ha) of seasonal 

wetlands, 11.78 ac (4.77 ha) of shrub lands, 14.52 ac (5.88 ha) of unvegetated flats, and 5,813.07 

ac (2,352.48 ha) of urban/other developed lands. 

Sensitive Vegetation Communities 

The sensitive vegetation communities in this alignment are seasonal and permanent freshwater 

wetlands. 

Special-Status Plants 

The San Francisco to Dumbarton alignment alternative could adversely affect the habitat of 19 

special-status plant species (Table 3.15-1). Those species that are federally or state listed as 

threatened or endangered would be of special concern because of the protection afforded them 

under the ESA and CESA. 

Special-Status Wildlife 

The San Francisco to Dumbarton alignment alternative could adversely affect the habitat of 29 

special-status wildlife species, including several species of butterflies, amphibians, reptiles, 

shorebirds, and small mammals (Table 3.15-1). This alignment alternative also has the potential to 

impact marine/anadromous species. 

Wildlife Movement Corridors 

Most of the region is urbanized, and there are limited data available on wildlife movement/migration 

corridors in this area. All of the riparian and stream corridors between the Santa Cruz Mountains and 

the San Francisco Bay provide corridors for wildlife movement. There could be impacts on these 

streams and riparian corridors. The western shore of the San Francisco Bay provides a critical 

movement corridor for nesting and foraging birds and other wildlife. The Wilderness Coalition has 

identified this as a critical linkage corridor (2000) (Figure 3.15-3). Impacts on the western side of the 

San Francisco Bay are expected to be minimal. 

Water Resources/Wetlands 

The San Francisco to Dumbarton alignment alternative has the potential to impact approximately 590 

ft (180 m) of potential non-wetland waters and approximately 0.08 ac (0.03 ha) of wetlands. This 

alignment is in proximity to the western shore of the San Francisco Bay and crosses several water 

resources, including Oyster Point Channel, San Mateo Creek, and other small streams. 

Conservation Plans 

The San Francisco to Dumbarton alignment alternative could adversely impact the South San 

Francisco Bay Core Area identified in the Recovery Plan for the California Red-legged Frog (U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 2002). In addition, this alignment alternative could adversely affect designated 

critical habitat for the Bay checkerspot butterfly. 

Dumbarton to San Jose Alignment Alternative 

The Dumbarton to San Jose alignment alternative could have direct impacts on 1.08 ac (0.44 ha) of 

grasslands, 0.05 ac (0.02 ha) of open waters, 0.10 ac (0.04 ha) of shrub lands, and 108.56 ac (43.93 

ha) of urban/other developed lands. This alignment alternative could have indirect impacts on 22.55 

ac (9.13 ha) of grasslands, 1.66 ac (0.67 ha) of open waters, 7.28 ac (2.95 ha) of shrub lands, and 

4,808.38 ac (1,945.89 ha) of urban/other developed lands. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.15 Biological Resources and Wetlands 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.15-36

Sensitive Vegetation Communities 

The sensitive vegetation communities in this alignment are seasonal and permanent freshwater 

wetlands. 

Special-Status Plants 

The Dumbarton to San Jose Alignment could adversely affect the habitat of five special-status plant 

species (Table 3.15-1). These species would also be affected by the San Francisco to Dumbarton 

alignment alternative. 

Special-Status Wildlife 

The Dumbarton to San Jose alignment alternative could adversely affect the habitat of 19 specialstatus wildlife species, including species of amphibians, reptiles, birds, and small mammals (Table 

3.15-1). This alignment alternative also has the potential to impact marine/anadromous species. 

Wildlife Movement Corridors 

Impacts on wildlife movement corridors for this alignment would be the same as the San Francisco to 

Dumbarton alignment alternative. 

Water Resources/Wetlands 

This alignment has the potential to impact approximately 672 ft (205 m) of potential non-wetland 

waters. This alignment alternative is also in proximity to the western shore of the San Francisco Bay 

and crosses San Francisquito/Los Trancos Creek, Matadero Creek, Adobe Creek, and other small 

streams. 

Conservation Plans 

Similar to the San Francisco to Dumbarton alignment alternative, this alignment alternative could 

adversely impact the South San Francisco Bay Core Area identified in the Recovery Plan for the for 

California Red-legged Frog (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2002). 

San Francisco to San Jose Corridor Stations 

• Transbay Transit Center: This station could have direct impacts on 5.8 ac (2.35 ha) of 

urban/other developed lands. This station could have indirect impacts on 0.01 ac (0.004 ha) of 

Bay waters and 140 ac (56.66 ha) of urban/other developed lands. This station could adversely 

affect the habitat of one special-status plant species. Impacts on special-status wildlife species, 

waters, wetlands, and marine/anadromous species are not anticipated with this station location. 

• 4th and King (Caltrain) Station: This station could have direct impacts on 32.8 ac (13.27 ha) of 

urban/other developed lands. This station could have indirect impacts on 2 ac (0.8 ha) of open 

water and 256 ac (103.6 ha) of urban/other developed lands. This station could adversely affect 

the habitat of one special-status plant species. Impacts on special-status wildlife species, waters, 

wetlands, and marine/anadromous species are not anticipated with this station location. 

• Mlilbrae/SFO Station: This station could have direct impacts on 7.1 ac (2.87 ha) of urban/other 

developed lands. This station could have indirect impacts on 0.5 ac (0.2 ha) of grasslands, 26 ac 

(10.5 ha) of seasonal wetlands, and 122 ac (49.37 ha) of urban/other developed lands. Impacts 

on special-status plant and wildlife species, waters, wetlands, and marine/anadromous species 

are not anticipated at this station location. 

• Redwood City (Caltrain) Station: This station could have direct impacts on 3.2 ac (1.3 ha) of 

urban/other developed lands. This station could have indirect impacts on 0.2 ac (0.08 ha) of 

grasslands, 130 ac (52.6 ha) of urban/other developed lands. Impacts on special-status plant 

and wildlife species, waters, wetlands, and marine/anadromous species are not anticipated at this 

station location. 

• Palo Alto (Caltrain) Station: This station could have direct impacts on 14.2 ac (5.75 ha) of 

urban/other developed lands. This station could have indirect impacts on 0.8 ac (0.3 ha) of 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.15 Biological Resources and Wetlands 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.15-37

grasslands and 204 ac (82.56 ha) of urban/other developed lands. This station could adversely 

affect the habitat of one special-status wildlife species. Impacts on special-status plant species, 

waters, wetlands, and marine/anadromous species are not anticipated with this station location. 

Summary of San Francisco to San Jose Corridor Impacts 

Sensitive Vegetation Communities 

The sensitive vegetation communities in this corridor are seasonal and permanent freshwater 

wetlands. 

Special-Status Plants 

Both the alignment alternatives in the San Francisco to San Jose corridor could adversely affect the 

habitat of 19 special-status plant species. 

Special-Status Wildlife 

The San Francisco to Dumbarton alignment alternative could adversely affect habitat for the Bay 

checkerspot butterfly, callippe silverspot, mission blue butterfly, and San Bruno elfin butterfly; nesting 

habitat for brown pelican, black rail, California clapper rail, California least tern, double-crested 

cormorant, and salt marsh common yellowthroat; and salt marsh harvest mouse and salt marsh 

wandering shrew. 

The Dumbarton to San Jose alignment alternative could adversely affect habitat for California tiger 

salamander. 

Wildlife Movement Corridors 

Both alignment alternatives would have minimal impact on wildlife movement corridors along the 

western shore of the San Francisco Bay. 

Water Resources/Wetlands 

This corridor has the potential to directly impact approximately 1,260 ft (384 m) of potential nonwetland waters and approximately 0.08 ac (0.03 ha) of wetlands. 

Conservation Plans 

Only the San Francisco to Dumbarton alignment alternative would have the potential to adversely 

affect designated critical habitat for the Bay checkerspot butterfly in the San Francisco to San Jose 

corridor. Both alignment alternatives could adversely impact the South San Francisco Bay Core Area 

identified in the Recovery Plan for the California Red-legged Frog (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2002). 

Oakland to San Jose Corridor

West Oakland to Niles Junction Alignment Alternative 

The West Oakland to Niles Junction alignment alternative could have direct impacts on 0.47 ac 

(0.19 ha) of grasslands and 62.13 ac (25.14 ha) of urban/other developed lands. This alignment 

alternative could have indirect impacts on 123.40 ac (49.94 ha) of grasslands, 2.00 ac (0.81 ha) of 

open waters, 0.15 ac (0.06 ha) of shrub lands, 6.74 ac (2.73 ha) of unvegetated flats, and 2,913.18 

ac (1,178.93 ha) of urban/other developed lands. 

Sensitive Vegetation Communities 

There are no sensitive vegetation communities in this alignment alternative. 

Special-Status Plants 

The West Oakland to Niles Junction alignment alternative could adversely affect the habitat of five 

special-status plant species (Table 3.15-1). 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.15 Biological Resources and Wetlands 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.15-38

Special-Status Wildlife 

The West Oakland to Niles Junction alignment alternative could adversely affect the habitat of 23 

special-status wildlife species, including species of amphibians, reptiles, shorebirds, and small 

mammals (Table 3.15-1). 

Wildlife Movement Corridors 

All the riparian and stream corridors crossed by this alignment alternative provide corridors for 

wildlife movement between the Diablo Range and the San Francisco Bay. There could be impacts on 

these streams and riparian corridors. The Wilderness Coalition (2000) identified critical linkage 

corridors along the eastern shore of San Francisco Bay, as well as a corridor linking the San Francisco 

Bay to the Diablo Range (Figure 3.15-3). This alignment alternative is expected to have minimal 

impacts on the eastern shore of San Francisco Bay. This alignment alternative could have minor 

impacts on the corridor linking the San Francisco Bay to the Diablo Range. This alignment alternative 

also has the potential to impact marine/anadromous species. 

Water Resources/Wetlands 

This alignment alternative has the potential to directly impact approximately 455 ft (139 m) of 

potential non-wetland waters and approximately 0.11 ac (0.04 ha) of wetlands. This alignment is in 

proximity to the eastern shore of the San Francisco Bay and crosses or is adjacent to a number of 

water resources, including a tributary to Lake Merritt, San Leandro Creek, and several other small 

streams. 

Conservation Plans 

This alignment alternative would not affect habitats or species in any conservation plan. 

12th Street/City Center to Niles Junction Alignment Alternative 

The 12th Street/City Center to Niles Junction alignment alternative could have direct impacts on 0.47 

ac (0.19 ha) of grasslands and 59.27 ac (23.99 ha) of urban/other developed lands. This alignment 

alternative could have indirect impacts on 123.10 ac (49.82 ha) of grasslands, 1.66 ac (0.67 ha) of 

open waters, 0.15 ac (0.06 ha) of shrub lands, 6.74 ac (2.73 ha) of unvegetated flats, and 2,658.42 

ac (1,075.83 ha) of urban/other developed lands. 

Sensitive Vegetation Communities 

There are no sensitive vegetation communities in this alignment alternative. 

Special-Status Plants 

The 12th Street/City Center to Niles Junction alignment alternative could adversely affect the habitat 

of six special-status plant species (Table 3.15-1). Five of the species are the same as in the West 

Oakland to Niles Junction alignment alternative. 

Special-Status Wildlife 

The 12th Street/City Center to Niles Junction alignment alternative could adversely affect the habitat 

of the same 23 special-status wildlife species that the West Oakland to Niles Junction alignment 

alternative could affect. This alignment alternative also has the potential to impact 

marine/anadromous species. 

Wildlife Movement Corridors 

Impacts on wildlife movement corridors from this alignment alternative would be the same as the 

West Oakland to Niles Junction alignment alternative. 

Water Resources/Wetlands 

This alignment alternative would have the same potential impacts on non-wetland waters and 

wetlands. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.15 Biological Resources and Wetlands 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.15-39

Conservation Plans 

This alignment would not affect habitats or species in any conservation plan. 

Niles Junction to San Jose via Trimble Alignment Alternative 

The Niles Junction to San Jose via Trimble alignment alternative could have direct impacts on 7.34 ac 

(2.97 ha) of grasslands, 0.71 ac (0.29 ha) of open water, 0.04 ac (0.01 ha) of riparian habitat, 2.28 

ac (0.92 ha) of seasonal wetlands, and 79.46 ac (32.16 ha) of urban/other developed lands. This 

alignment alternative could have indirect impacts on 51.01 ac (20.64 ha) of agricultural lands, 380.72 

ac (154.07 ha) of grasslands, 0.39 ac (0.16 ha) of managed bay lands, 30.12 ac (12.19 ha) of open 

waters, 0.37 ac (0.15 ha) of riparian habitat, 0.48 ac (0.19 ha) of saline-brackish permanent wetland, 

96.71 ac (39.14 ha) of seasonal wetlands, 0.22 ac (0.09 ha) of shrub land, and 3,548.55 ac 

(1,436.46 ha) of urban/other developed lands. 

Sensitive Vegetation Communities 

The sensitive vegetation communities in this alignment alternative are the riparian, seasonal 

wetlands, and saline-brackish permanent wetlands. 

Special-Status Plants 

The Niles Junction to San Jose via Trimble alignment alternative could adversely affect the habitat of 

six special-status plant species (Table 3.15-1). 

Special-Status Wildlife 

The Niles Junction to San Jose via Trimble alignment alternative could adversely affect the habitat of 

25 special-status wildlife species, including species of aquatic invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, 

shorebirds, and small mammals (Table 3.15-1). Species with limited habitats or ranges, such as the 

aquatic invertebrates species, would be of special concern because of the adverse effects that even 

small impacts on their habitat could cause. This alignment alternative also has the potential to 

impact marine/anadromous species. 

Wildlife Movement Corridors 

Impacts on wildlife movement corridors from this alignment alternative would be the same as the 

West Oakland to Niles Junction alignment alternative. 

Water Resources/Wetlands 

This alignment alternative has the potential to directly impact approximately 958 ft (292 m) of 

potential non-wetland waters and approximately 1.3 ac (0.53 ha) of wetlands. This alignment 

alternative crosses or is adjacent to a number of water resources, including Lake Elizabeth, Coyote 

Creek, Guadalupe River, and several other small streams. 

Conservation Plans 

The Niles Junction to San Jose via Trimble alignment alternative could negatively impact the 

Southeast San Francisco Bay core area identified in the Recovery Plan for Vernal Pool Ecosystems

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2005). 

Special Management Areas 

The Niles Junction to San Jose via Trimble alignment alternative could have negative impacts on the 

Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge. 

Niles Junction to San Jose via I-880 Alignment Alternative 

The Niles Junction to San Jose via I-880 alignment alternative could have direct impacts on 8.09 ac 

(3.27 ha) of grasslands, 0.71 ac (0.29 ha) of open water, 0.04 ac (0.01 ha) of riparian habitat, 2.28 

ac (0.92 ha) of seasonal wetlands, and 69.19 ac (28 ha) of urban/other developed lands. This 

alignment alternative could have indirect impacts on 51.01 ac (20.64 ha) of agricultural lands, 424.88 

ac (171.94 ha) of grasslands, 0.39 ac (0.16 ha) of managed bay lands, 30.12 ac (12.19 ha) of open 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.15 Biological Resources and Wetlands 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.15-40

waters, 0.37 ac (0.15 ha) of riparian habitat, 0.48 ac (0.19 ha) of saline-brackish permanent wetland, 

96.71 ac (39.14 ha) of seasonal wetlands, 0.22 ac (0.09 ha) of shrub land, and 4,289.25 ac 

(1,753.81 ha) of urban/other developed lands. 

Sensitive Vegetation Communities 

The sensitive vegetation communities in this alignment alternative are the riparian, seasonal 

wetlands, and saline-brackish permanent wetlands. 

Special-Status Plants 

The Niles Junction to San Jose via I-880 alignment alternative could adversely affect the habitat of 

five special-status plant species (Table 3.15-1). These species are the same as those identified in the 

Niles Junction to San Jose via Trimble alignment alternative. 

Special-Status Wildlife 

The Niles Junction to San Jose via I-880 alignment alternative could adversely affect the habitat of 

the same 25 special-status wildlife species as the Niles Junction via Trimble alignment alternative. 

This alignment alternative also has the potential to impact marine/anadromous species. 

Wildlife Movement Corridors 

Impacts on wildlife movement corridors from this alignment alternative would be the same as the 

West Oakland to Niles Junction alignment alternative. 

Water Resources/Wetlands 

This alignment alternative has the potential to directly impact approximately 1,080 ft (329 m) of 

potential non-wetland waters and approximately 1.8 ac (0.73 ha) of wetlands. Similar to the Niles 

Junction to San Jose via Trimble alignment alternative, this alignment alternative crosses or is 

adjacent to several water resources, including Lake Elizabeth, Coyote Creek, Guadalupe River, and a 

number of other small streams. 

Conservation Plans 

Impacts on habitats and species identified in conservation plans from this alignment alternative 

would be the same as for the Niles Junction to San Jose via Trimble alignment alternative. 

Special Management Areas 

Impacts on special management areas from this alignment alternative would be the same as for the 

Niles Junction to San Jose via Trimble alignment alternative. 

Oakland to San Jose Corridor Stations 

• West Oakland/7th Street Station: This station location option could have direct impacts on 2.6 ac 

(1.05 ha) of urban/other developed lands. This station location option could have indirect 

impacts on 0.3 ac (0.12 ha) of grasslands and 121 ac (48.97 ha) of urban/other developed lands. 

Impacts on special-status plant and wildlife species, waters, wetlands, and marine/anadromous 

species are not anticipated at this station location. 

• 12th Street/City Center Station: This station location option could have direct impacts on 9.9 ac 

(4 ha) of urban/other developed lands. This station location option could have indirect impacts 

on 0.2 ac (0.08 ha) of grasslands, 0.6 ac (0.24 ha) of open waters, and 126 ac (51 ha) of 

urban/other developed lands. Impacts on special-status plant and wildlife species, waters, 

wetlands, and marine/anadromous species are not anticipated at this station location option. 

• Coliseum/Airport Station: This station location option could have direct impacts on 10.5 ac 

(4.25 ha) of urban/other developed lands. This station location option could have indirect 

impacts on 0.2 ac (0.08 ha) of grasslands, 6.5 ac (2.63 ha) of unvegetated flats, and 162 ac 

(65.56 ha) of urban/other developed lands. Impacts on special-status plant and wildlife species 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.15 Biological Resources and Wetlands 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.15-41

are not anticipated at this station location. This station could impact 482 linear ft (147 m) of 

waters and 0.6 ac (0.24 ha) of wetlands and potentially impact marine/anadromous species. 

• Union City (BART) Station: This station location option could have direct impacts on 1.1 ac 

(0.45 ha) of grasslands and 47 ac (19 ha) of urban/other developed lands. This station location 

option could have indirect impacts on 6.6 ac (2.67 ha) of grasslands, 0.05 ac (0.02 ha) of open 

waters, and 251 ac (101.58 ha) of urban/other developed lands. Impacts on special-status plant 

and wildlife species, waters, wetlands, and marine/anadromous species are not anticipated at this 

station location option. 

• Union City (Shinn) Station: This station location option could have direct impacts on 0.4 ac 

(0.16 ha) of grasslands and 12 ac (4.86 ha) of urban/other developed lands. This station 

location option could have indirect impacts on 7.2 ac (2.91 ha) of grasslands, 15 ac (6.07 ha) of 

open water, and 152 ac (61.51 ha) of urban/other developed lands. Impacts on special-status 

plant and wildlife species, waters, wetlands, and marine/anadromous species are not anticipated 

at this station location. 

• Freemont (Warm Springs) Station: This station location option could have direct impacts on 20 

ac (8.09 ha) of grasslands and 51 ac (20.64 ha) of urban/other developed lands. This station 

location option could have indirect impacts on 71 ac (28.73 ha) of grasslands, 4 ac (1.62 ha) of 

open water, and 266 ac (107.65 ha) of urban/other developed lands. Impacts on special-status 

plant and wildlife species, waters, wetlands, and marine/anadromous species are not anticipated 

at this station location. 

Summary of Oakland to San Jose Corridor Impacts 

Sensitive Vegetation Communities 

The sensitive vegetation communities in this corridor were identified in the Niles Junction to San Jose 

via I-880 and San Jose via Trimble alignment alternatives and were riparian, seasonal wetlands, and 

saline-brackish permanent wetlands. 

Special-Status Plants 

All of the special-status plant species that have the potential to be affected in the West Oakland to 

Niles Junction alignment alternative would also be affected in the 12th Street/City Center to Niles 

Junction alignment alternative. The same is true for the Niles Junction to San Jose via I-880 

alignment alternative, as compared to the San Jose via Trimble alignment alternative. Both the 12th

Street/City Center to Niles Junction and San Jose via Trimble alignment alternatives include one 

additional species. 

Special-Status Wildlife 

The special-status wildlife species that have the potential to be affected by the West Oakland to Niles 

Junction and the 12th Street/City Center to Niles Junction alignment alternatives are the same. The 

special-status wildlife that have the potential to affected by the Niles Junction to San Jose via I-880 

and the Niles Junction to San Jose via Trimble alignment alternatives are the same. 

Wildlife Movement Corridors 

Both the West Oakland to Niles Junction and the 12th Street/City Center to Niles Junction alignment 

alternatives would have minimal impact on the east shore of San Francisco Bay. These alignment 

alternatives could impact the streams and riparian corridors linking the Bay to the Diablo Range. 

Both the Niles Junction to San Jose via I-880 and the Niles Junction to San Jose via Trimble 

alignment alternatives could impact the wildlife movement corridor along the eastern shore of San 

Francisco Bay. These alignment alternatives could also have impacts on the streams and riparian 

corridors linking the Bay to the Diablo Range. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.15 Biological Resources and Wetlands 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.15-42

Water Resources/Wetlands 

This potential nonwetland jurisdictional waters and wetlands that could be affected by either the 

West Oakland to Niles Junction or 12th Street/City Center to Niles Junction alignment alternatives 

would be similar. The Niles Junction to San Jose via I-880 alignment alternative would have slightly 

greater impacts on waters and wetlands compared to the Niles Junction to San Jose via Trimble 

alignment alternative. 

Conservation Plans 

Both the Niles Junction to San Jose via I-880 alignment alternative and the Niles Junction to San Jose 

via Trimble alignment alternative could negatively impact the Southeast San Francisco Bay core area 

identified in the Recovery Plan for Vernal Pool Ecosystems (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2005).

Special Management Areas 

Both the Niles Junction to San Jose via I-880 and the Niles Junction to San Jose via Trimble 

alignment alternatives could negatively impact the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife 

Refuge. 

San Jose to Central Valley Corridor

Pacheco Alignment Alternative 

The Pacheco alignment alternative could have direct impacts on 85.45 ac (34.58 ha) of agricultural 

lands, 64.04 ac (25.92 ha) of grasslands, 11.55 ac (4.67 ha) of oak woodland/foothill pine, 4.06 ac 

(1.64 ha) of shrub lands, and 123.91 ac (50.14 ha) of urban/other developed lands. This alignment 

alternative could have indirect impacts on 4,716.43 ac (1,908.68 ha) of agricultural lands, 3,968.53 

ac (1,606.01 ha) of grasslands, 925.92 ac (374.71 ha) of oak and foothill pine woodlands, 32.98 ac 

(13.35 ha) of open waters, 243.11 ac (98.38 ha) of shrub lands, and 4,689.15 ac (1,897.64 ha) of 

urban/other developed lands. 

Sensitive Vegetation Communities 

The sensitive vegetation community in this alignment alternative is oak woodlands. 

Special-Status Plants 

The Pacheco alignment alternative could adversely affect the habitat of 23 special-status plant 

species (Table 3.15-1). 

Special-Status Wildlife 

The Pacheco alignment alternative could adversely affect the habitat of 27 special-status wildlife 

species, including species of invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, raptors, and mammals (Table 3.15-

1). This alignment alternative also has the potential to impact marine/anadromous species. 

Wildlife Movement Corridors 

The streams, and associated riparian habitats, flowing from the Diablo Range and the Santa Cruz 

Mountains that would be crossed by the Pacheco alignment alternative provide movement corridors 

for fish and wildlife species. The alignment alternative would bisect movement corridors through the 

Diablo Range. Because the alignment alternative would be elevated over drainages, it is not 

anticipated to impact the major drainages, such as Coyote Creek, the Pajaro River, Tres Pinos Creek, 

the Pacheco Creek, and other drainages, which provide wildlife movement corridors. 

Water Resources/Wetlands 

This alignment alternative has the potential to directly impact approximately 1,960 ft (597 m) of 

potential nonwetland jurisdictional waters and approximately 0.11 ac (0.04 ha) of wetlands. The 

Pacheco alignment alternative crosses or is adjacent to a number of water resources, including 

Coyote Creek, Los Gatos Creek, Miller Slough, and the Pajaro River, and a number of other small 

streams. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.15 Biological Resources and Wetlands 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.15-43

Conservation Plans 

The Pacheco alignment alternative could adversely impact designated critical habitat for the Bay 

checkerspot butterfly and the California tiger salamander. This alignment alternative could also 

adversely impact the South San Francisco Bay Core Area identified in the Recovery Plan for the for 

California Red-Legged Frog (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2002). 

Special Management Areas 

The Pacheco alignment alternative would not traverse through the Henry Coe State Park, located 

northeast of Gilroy, or the Pacheco State Park near San Luis Reservoir, and there are no anticipated 

impacts on these state parks as a result of this alignment alternative. This alignment alternative 

would traverse lands that have been protected by the Nature Conservancy as part of its Mount 

Hamilton Project and could have adverse impacts on these protected lands. It would extend through 

the CDFG Upper Cottonwood Creek Wildlife Area resulting in adverse impacts where the alignment is 

not in tunnel. The alignment would be in tunnel approximately 1.1 miles, or about 46%, within the 

wildlife area as shown on Figure 3.15-4. 

Henry Miller (UPRR Connection) Alignment Alternative 

The Henry Miller (UPRR Connection) alignment alternative could have direct impacts on 211.90 ac 

(85.75 ha) of agricultural lands, 121.06 ac (49 ha) of grasslands, 6.25 ac (2.53 ha) of oak 

woodland/foothill pine, 2.24 ac (0.91 ha) of open waters, 1.34 ac (0.54 ha) of permanent freshwater 

wetlands, 0.59 ac (0.24 ha) of riparian habitat, 2.32 ac (0.94 ha) of seasonal wetlands, 0.11 ac 

(0.04 ha) of shrub lands, and 33.97 ac (13.75 ha) of urban/other developed lands. This alignment 

alternative could have indirect impacts on 11,987.68 ac (4,851.26 ha) of agricultural lands, 6,430.46 

ac (2,602.33 ha) of grasslands, 0.15 ac (0.06 ha) of montane hardwood forest, 314.30 ac 

(127.19 ha) of oak and foothill pine woodlands, 164.36 ac (66.51 ha) of open waters, 121.78 ac 

(49.28 ha) of permanent freshwater wetlands, 11.03 ac (4.46 ha) of riparian habitat, 134.04 ac 

(54.24 ha) of seasonal wetlands, 6.96 ac (2.82 ha) of shrub lands, and 1,453.91 ac (588.39 ha) of 

urban/other developed lands. 

Sensitive Vegetation Communities 

The sensitive vegetation communities within this alignment alternative are seasonal wetlands, 

permanent freshwater wetlands, riparian, and oak woodlands. 

Special-Status Plants 

The Henry Miller (UPRR Connection) alignment alternative could adversely affect the habitat of 25 

special-status plant species, including species of invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, raptors and 

other birds, and mammals (Table 3.15-1). 

Special-Status Wildlife 

The Henry Miller (UPRR Connection) alignment alternative could adversely affect the habitat of 34 

special-status wildlife species, including species of invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, raptors and 

other birds, and mammals (Table 3.15-1). Species with limited habitats or ranges, such as the 

aquatic invertebrates, and those with limited nesting ranges, such as willow flycatcher and least Bell’s 

vireo, would be of special concern because of the adverse effects that even small impacts on their 

habitat could cause. 

Wildlife Movement Corridors 

The Henry Miller (UPRR Connection) alignment alternative would bisect the major San Joaquin kit fox 

movement corridor between the southern portion of its range and the northern portion of its range 

along the west side of the San Joaquin Valley. The Henry Miller (UPRR Connection) alignment 

alternative also crosses the San Joaquin River, which is a movement corridor for fish and bird 

species. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.15 Biological Resources and Wetlands 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.15-44

Water Resources/Wetlands 

This alignment alternative has the potential to directly impact approximately 10,590 ft (3,228 m) of 

potential non-wetland waters and approximately 11.6 ac (4.69 ha) of wetlands. The Henry Miller 

(UPRR Connection) alignment alternative crosses the San Joaquin River, sloughs, and creeks. 

Conservation Plans 

Similar to the Pacheco alignment alternative, the Henry Miller (UPRR Connection) alignment 

alternative could adversely impact the East San Francisco Bay Core Area identified in the Recovery 

Plan for the for California Red-legged Frog (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2002). 

Special Management Areas 

Similar to the Pacheco alignment alternative, the Henry Miller (UPRR Connection) alignment 

alternative would traverse lands that have been protected by the Nature Conservancy as part of its 

Mount Hamilton Project and could have adverse impacts on these protected lands. This alignment 

alternative would also adversely impact the GEA. The alignment would pass north of the San Luis 

Reservoir State Recreation Area and O’Neill Forebay Wildlife Area. It would also traverse the area 

known as the GEA, but it would not result in direct impacts on the CDFG Volta Wildlife Area or the 

San Luis National Wildlife Refuge Complex as shown on Figure 3.15-4. The Henry Miller alignment 

alternative would extend immediately adjacent to and elevated above the roadway where it crosses 

the Los Banos Wildlife Area. 

Henry Miller (BNSF Connection) Alignment Alternative 

The Henry Miller (BNSF Connection) alignment alternative could have direct impacts on 227.68 ac 

(92.14 ha) of agricultural lands, 118.84 ac (48.09 ha) of grasslands, 2.54 ac (1.03 ha) of hardwood 

forests, 7.53 ac (3.05 ha) of oak woodland/foothill pine, 2.43 ac (0.98 ha) of open waters, 1.34 ac 

(0.54 ha) of permanent freshwater marsh, 0.19 ac (0.08 ha) of riparian habitat, 1.54 ac (0.62 ha) of 

seasonal wetlands, 0.52 ac (0.21 ha) of shrub lands, and 31.01 ac (12.55 ha) of urban/other 

developed lands. This alignment alternative could have indirect impacts on 12,428.32 ac 

(5,028.59 ha) of agricultural lands, 6,649.80 ac (2,691.09 ha) of grasslands, 111.97 ac (45.31 ha) of 

montane hardwood forest, 431.69 ac (174.7 ha) of oak and foothill pine woodlands, 166.52 ac 

(67.39 ha) of open waters, 123.61 ac (50.02 ha) of permanent freshwater wetlands, 3.92 ac 

(1.59 ha) of riparian habitat, 134.18 ac (54.3 ha) of seasonal wetlands, 20.72 ac (8.39 ha) of shrub 

lands, and 1,358.76 ac (549.87 ha) of urban/other developed lands. 

Sensitive Vegetation Communities 

The sensitive vegetation communities within this alignment alternative are seasonal wetlands, 

permanent freshwater wetlands, permanent freshwater marsh, riparian, and oak woodlands. 

Special-Status Plants 

The Henry Miller (BNSF Connection) alignment alternative could adversely affect the habitat of the 

same 25 special-status plant species that the Henry Miller (UPRR Connection) alignment alternative 

could affect. 

Special-Status Wildlife 

The Henry Miller (BNSF Connection) alignment alternative could adversely affect the habitat of the 

same 34 special-status wildlife species as the Henry Miller (UPRR Connection) alignment alternative. 

Wildlife Movement Corridors 

Impacts on wildlife movement corridors from this alignment alternative would be the same as those 

for the Henry Miller (UPRR Connection) alignment alternative. 

Water Resources/Wetlands 

Similar to the Henry Miller (UPRR Connection) alignment alternative, this alignment alternative has 

the potential to directly impact approximately 10,315 ft (3,144 m) of potential non-wetland waters 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Public Lands – San Jose t

Henry Coe State Park 

Upper Cottonwood Creek Wildlife Area 

Pacheco 

State Park 

Cañada De Los OsosEcological Reserve 

Volta Wildlife Area 

San Luis 

Reservoir State Recreation Area 

Lower Cottonwood Creek Wildlife Area 

San Luis National Wildlife Refuge 

Great Valley Grasslands Sta

North 

Grasslands 

Wildlife Area

North Grasslands

Wildlife Area 

O’Neill Forebay

Wildlife Area 

San Luis Reservoir Wildlife Area 

GEA North Alignment Alternative 

Pacheco Alignment Alternative 

Source: USBR, BLM, CDPR, CDFG, (former) Teale Data Center, USFS, California GAP Analysis Project, and the Wildlands Conservancy 

Publicly Owned Lands 

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.15 Biological Resources and Wetlands 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.15-45

and approximately 11.5 ac (4.65 ha) of wetlands. The Henry Miller (BNSF Connection) alignment 

alternative crosses the San Joaquin River, sloughs, and creeks. 

Conservation Plans 

Impacts on habitats and species identified in conservation plans from this alignment alternative 

would be the same as for the Henry Miller (UPRR Connection) alignment alternative. 

Special Management Areas 

Impacts on special management areas from this alignment alternative would be the same as for the 

Henry Miller (UPRR Connection) alignment alternative. 

GEA North Alignment Alternative 

The GEA North alignment alternative could have direct impacts on 200.03 ac (80.95 ha) of 

agricultural lands, 123.43 ac (49.95 ha) of grasslands, 2.89 ac (1.17 ha) of oak woodland/foothill 

pine, 1.21 ac (0.49 ha) of open waters, 3.17 ac (1.28 ha) of permanent freshwater marsh, 1.26 ac 

(0.51 ha) of riparian habitat, and 32.75 ac (13.26 ha) of urban/other developed lands. This 

alignment alternative could have indirect impacts on 11,631.04 ac (4,707.08 ha) of agricultural lands, 

6,385.21 ac (2,584.09 ha) of grasslands, 280.35 ac (113.46 ha) of oak and foothill pine woodlands, 

107.41 ac (43.47 ha) of open waters, 131.78 ac (53.33 ha) of permanent freshwater wetlands, 33.71 

ac (13.64 ha) of riparian habitat, 16.31 ac (6.60 ha) of seasonal wetlands, 3.10 ac (1.25 ha) of shrub 

lands, and 1,408.79 ac (570.14 ha) of urban/other developed lands. 

Sensitive Vegetation Communities 

The sensitive vegetation communities within this alignment alternative are seasonal wetlands, 

permanent freshwater wetlands, permanent freshwater marsh, riparian, and oak woodlands. 

Special-Status Plants 

The GEA North alignment alternative could adversely affect the habitat of 22 special-status plant 

species (Table 3.15-1). 

Special-Status Wildlife 

The GEA North alignment alternative could adversely affect the habitat of 34 special-status wildlife 

species, including species of invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, raptors and other birds, and 

mammals (Table 3.15-1). Species with limited habitats or ranges, such as the aquatic invertebrates, 

and those with limited nesting range, such as willow flycatcher and least Bell’s vireo, would be of 

special concern, as would be the California tiger salamander. 

Wildlife Movement Corridors 

Impacts on wildlife movement corridors from this alignment alternative would be the same as for the 

Henry Miller (UPRR Connection) alignment alternative. 

Water Resources/Wetlands 

This alignment alternative has the potential to directly impact approximately 6,771 ft (2,347 m) of 

potential non-wetland waters and approximately 17.96 ac (7.27 ha) of wetlands, the highest of the 

alignment alternatives within this corridor. The GEA North alignment alternative crosses the San 

Joaquin River twice, sloughs, and creeks but is further north of the Henry Miller alignment 

alternatives and minimizes impacts on water crossings compared to either of the Henry Miller 

alignment alternatives. 

Conservation Plans 

The GEA North alignment alternative could adversely affect the GEA. The GEA has been identified as 

a core area of recovery in the Recovery Plan for Vernal Pool Ecosystems (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 2005). 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.15 Biological Resources and Wetlands 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.15-46

The GEA North alignment alternative could adversely impact the East San Francisco Bay Core Area 

identified in the Recovery Plan for the California Red-legged Frog (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2002). 

Special Management Areas 

Impacts on special management areas from this alignment alternative include the San Luis National 

Wildlife Area, North Grasslands Wildlife Area, and the Great Valley Grasslands State Park, which 

provide habitat for a number of special-status plant and wildlife species. 

San Jose to Central Valley Corridor Stations 

• San Jose-Diridon Station: This station location option could have direct impacts on 13 ac 

(5.26 ha) of urban/other developed lands. This station location option could have indirect 

impacts on 0.4 ac (0.16 ha) of grasslands, 0.2 ac (0.08 ha) of open waters, and 191 ac (77.3 ha) 

of urban/other developed lands. This station location option could adversely affect the habitat of 

one special-status plant and one wildlife species. Impacts on waters, wetlands, and 

marine/anadromous species are not anticipated with this station location. 

• Morgan Hill Station: This station location option could have direct impacts on 2 ac (0.81 ha) of 

agricultural land, 2.2 ac (0.89 ha) of grasslands and 2.5 ac (1.01 ha) of urban/other developed 

lands. This station location option could have indirect impacts on 33 ac (13.35 ha) of agricultural 

lands, 27 ac (10.93 ha) of grasslands, 98 ac (39.66 ha) of urban/other developed lands. Impacts 

on special-status plant and wildlife species, waters, wetlands, and marine/anadromous species 

are not anticipated with this station location. 

• Gilroy Station: This station location option could have direct impacts on 3.7 ac (1.5 ha) of 

agricultural land, 0.1 ac (0.04 ha) of grasslands, and 30 ac (12.14 ha) of urban/other developed 

lands. This station location option could have indirect impacts on 28 ac (11.33 ha) of agricultural 

lands, 7 ac (2.83 ha) of grasslands, and 192 ac (77.7 ha) of urban/other developed lands. This 

station location option could adversely affect the habitat of one special-status plant species. 

Impacts on special-status wildlife species, waters, wetlands, and marine/anadromous species are 

not anticipated with this station location. 

Summary of San Jose to Central Valley Corridor Impacts 

Sensitive Vegetation Communities 

The sensitive vegetation communities within this corridor are seasonal wetlands, permanent 

freshwater wetlands, permanent freshwater marsh, riparian, and oak woodlands. 

Special-Status Plants 

The Henry Miller alignment alternatives have the potential to impact a greater number of specialstatus plant species than the GEA North alignment alternative. Both of the Henry Miller alignment 

alternatives have the potential to impact the same special-status plant species. 

Special-Status Wildlife 

Both of the Henry Miller alignment alternatives have the potential to impact the same special-status 

wildlife species. The special-status wildlife species that will be impacted by the Henry Miller and the 

GEA North alignment alternatives are essentially the same. 

Wildlife Movement Corridors 

Both the GEA North and the Henry Miller alignment alternatives would bisect the major San Joaquin 

kit fox movement corridor between the southern portion of its range and the northern portion of its 

range along the west side of the San Joaquin Valley. 

Water Resources/Wetlands 

This corridor has the potential to directly impact between approximately 8,731 ft and 12,548 ft of 

potential non-wetland waters and between approximately 11.7 ac (5.1 ha) and 18.07 ac (7.31 ha) of 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.15 Biological Resources and Wetlands 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.15-47

wetlands. Both of the Henry Miller alignment alternatives have the potential to affect more 

jurisdictional waters than the GEA North alignment alternative, but the GEA North alignment 

alternative has the potential to impact more wetland areas. 

Conservation Plans 

The GEA North and the Henry Miller alignment alternatives could adversely affect core areas that 

have been identified for the recovery of the California red-legged frog. 

Special Management Areas 

The Pacheco alignment alternative would have adverse impacts on the Cottonwood Creek Wildlife 

Area where it is not in a tunnel. The GEA North and the Henry Miller alignment alternatives would 

traverse lands that have been protected by the Nature Conservancy as part of its Mount Hamilton 

Project and could have adverse impacts on these protected lands. Both the GEA North and Henry 

Miller alignment alternatives would adversely impact the GEA. The Henry Miller alignment 

alternative would extend immediately adjacent to and elevated above the roadway where it crosses 

the Los Banos Wildlife Area. 

The GEA North alignment alternative would adversely affect special management areas within the 

GEA, including the San Luis National Wildlife Refuge, North Grasslands Wildlife Area, and the Great 

Valley Grasslands State Park, which provide habitat for a number of special-status plant and wildlife 

species. 

East Bay to Central Valley Corridor

I-680/I-580/UPRR Alignment Alternative 

The I-680/I-580/UPRR alignment alternative could have direct impacts on 0.17 ac (0.07 ha) of 

agricultural lands, 48.82 ac (19.76 ha) of grasslands, 4.57 ac (1.85 ha) of oak woodland/foothill pine, 

0.01 ac (0.004 ha) of shrub lands, and 96.02 ac (38.86 ha) of urban/other developed lands. This 

alignment alternative could have indirect impacts on 408.03 ac (165.12 ha) of agricultural lands, 

4,016.15 ac (1,625.29 ha) of grasslands, 183.89 ac (74.42 ha) of oak and foothill pine woodlands, 

4.58 ac (1.85 ha) of open waters, 1.74 ac (0.7 ha) of shrub lands, and 3,275.32 ac (1,325.48 ha) of 

urban/other developed lands. 

Sensitive Vegetation Communities 

The sensitive vegetation community within this alignment alternative is oak woodlands. 

Special-Status Plants 

The I-680/I-580/UPRR alignment alternative could adversely affect the habitat of 24 special-status 

plant species (Table 3.15-1). 

Special-Status Wildlife 

The I-680/I-580/UPRR alignment alternative could adversely affect the habitat of 29 special-status 

wildlife species, including species of invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, raptors and other birds, and 

mammals (Table 3.15-1). Species with limited habitats or ranges, such as the aquatic invertebrates, 

would be of special concern because of the adverse effects that even a small impact to their habitat 

could cause. This alignment alternative also has the potential to impact marine/anadromous species. 

Wildlife Movement Corridors 

The I-680/I-580/UPRR alignment alternative would bisect the major San Joaquin kit fox movement 

corridor between the southern portion of its range and the northern portion of its range along the 

west side of the San Joaquin Valley. 

Water Resources/Wetlands 

This alignment alternative has the potential to directly impact approximately 6,290 ft (1,917.19 m) of 

potential nonwetland jurisdictional waters and approximately 4.4 ac (1.78 ha) of wetlands. The I-
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.15 Biological Resources and Wetlands 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.15-48

680/I-580/UPRR alignment alternative crosses or is adjacent to Arroyo Las Positas, Cayetano Creek, 

as well as other streams and water bodies. 

Conservation Plans 

The I-680/580/UPRR alignment alternative could adversely impact the East San Francisco Bay Core 

Area identified in the Recovery Plan for the California Red-legged Frog (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2002) and the Altamont Hills core area identified in the Recovery Plan for Vernal Pool Ecosystems 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2005). 

I-580/UPRR Alignment Alternative 

The I-580/UPRR alignment alternative could have direct impacts on 0.11 ac (0.04 ha) of agricultural 

lands, 47.29 ac (19.14 ha) of grasslands, 0.88 ac (0.36 ha) of oak woodland/foothill pine, 4.30 ac 

(1.74 ha) of open waters, and 71.92 ac (29.11 ha) of urban/other developed lands. This alignment 

alternative could have indirect impacts on 367.11 ac (148.56 ha) of agricultural lands, 3,669.00 ac 

(1,484.80 ha) of grasslands, 59.35 ac (24.02 ha) of oak and foothill pine woodlands, 158.71 ac 

(64.23 ha) of open waters, 1.64 ac (0.66 ha) of shrub lands, and 2,584.57 ac (1,045.94 ha) of 

urban/other developed lands. 

Sensitive Vegetation Communities 

The sensitive vegetation community within this alignment alternative is oak woodlands. 

Special-Status Plants 

The I-580/UPRR alignment alternative could adversely affect the habitat of the same 24 specialstatus plant species as the I-680/I-580/UPRR alignment alternative. 

Special-Status Wildlife 

The I-580/UPRR alignment alternative could adversely affect the habitat of the same 29 specialstatus wildlife species that the I-680/I-580/UPRR alignment alternative could affect. This alignment 

also has the potential to impact marine/anadromous species. 

Wildlife Movement Corridors 

Impacts on wildlife movement corridors from this alignment alternative would be the same as for the 

I-680/580/UPRR alignment alternative. 

Water Resources/Wetlands 

This alignment alternative has the potential to directly impact approximately 2,610 ft (795.53 m) of 

potential nonwetland jurisdictional waters and approximately 5.2 ac (2.1 ha) of wetlands. The I580/UPRR alignment alternative crosses or is adjacent to gravel pits filled with water as well as 

Arroyo Las Positas, Cayetano Creek, and other streams and water bodies. 

Conservation Plans 

Impacts on habitats and species identified in conservation plans from this alignment alternative 

would be the same as those for the I-680/580/UPRR alignment alternative. 

Patterson Pass/UPRR Alignment Alternative 

The Patterson Pass/UPRR alignment alternative could have direct impacts on 63.54 ac (25.71 ha) of 

grasslands, 0.88 ac (0.36 ha) of oak woodland/foothill pine, and 61.64 ac (24.94 ha) of urban/other 

developed lands. This alignment alternative could have indirect impacts on 3,503.56 ac 

(1,417.85 ha) of grasslands, 59.35 ac (24.02 ha) of oak and foothill pine woodlands, 62.57 ac 

(25.32 ha) of open waters, 1.27 ac (0.51 ha) of shrub lands, and 2,731.29 ac (1,105.32 ha) of 

urban/other developed lands. 

Sensitive Vegetation Communities 

The sensitive vegetation community within this alignment alternative is oak woodlands. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.15 Biological Resources and Wetlands 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.15-49

Special-Status Plants 

The Patterson Pass/UPRR alignment alternative could adversely affect the habitat of 20 special-status 

plant species (Table 3.15-1). These 20 species are also in the I-680/580/UPRR and I-580/UPRR 

alignment alternatives. 

Special-Status Wildlife 

The Patterson Pass/UPRR alignment alternative could adversely affect the habitat of 28 special-status 

wildlife species, including species of invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, raptors and other birds, and 

mammals (Table 3.15-1). This alignment alternative also has the potential to impact 

marine/anadromous species. 

Wildlife Movement Corridors 

Impacts on wildlife movement corridors from this alignment alternative would be the same as for the 

I-680/580/UPRR alignment alternative. 

Water Resources/Wetlands 

This alignment alternative has the potential to directly impact approximately 1,370 ft (417.58 m) of 

potential non-wetland waters and approximately 2.6 ac (1.05 ha) of wetlands. 

Conservation Plans 

Similar to the I-680/580/UPRR alignment alternative, the Patterson Pass/UPRR alignment alternative 

could adversely impact the East San Francisco Bay Core Area identified in the Recovery Plan for the 

California Red-legged Frog (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2002). 

UPRR Alignment Alternative 

The UPRR alignment alternative could have direct impacts on 57.43 ac (23.24 ha) of grasslands, 0.88 

ac (0.37 ha) oak woodland/foothill pine, and 64.90 ac (26.26 ha) of urban/other developed lands. 

This alignment alternative could have indirect impacts on 8,341.09 ac (3,375.53 ha) of agricultural 

lands, 3,665.27 ac (1,483.29 ha) of grasslands, 2.32 ac (0.94 ha) of oak and foothill pine woodlands, 

50.81 ac (20.56 ha) of open waters, 9.78 ac (3.96 ha) of permanent freshwater wetlands, 34.32 ac 

(13.89 ha) of riparian habitat, 10.32 ac (4.18 ha) of seasonal wetlands, and 14,568.51 ac 

(5,895.69 ha) of urban/other developed lands. 

Sensitive Vegetation Communities 

The sensitive vegetation community within this alignment alternative is oak woodlands. 

Special-Status Plants 

The UPRR alignment alternative could adversely affect the habitat of 20 special-status plant species 

(Table 3.15-1). These 20 species are also in the I-680/580/UPRR and I-580/UPRR alignment 

alternatives. 

Special-Status Wildlife 

Similar to the I-680/580/UPRR alignment alternative, the UPRR alignment alternative could adversely 

affect the habitat of the same 28 special-status wildlife species that the Patterson Pass/UPRR 

alignment alternative could affect. This alignment alternative also has the potential to impact 

marine/anadromous species. 

Wildlife Movement Corridors 

Impacts on wildlife movement corridors from this alignment alternative would be the same as for the 

I-680/580/UPRR alignment alternative. 

Water Resources/Wetlands 

This alignment alternative has the potential to directly impact approximately 1,150 ft (350.52 m) of 

potential nonwetland jurisdictional waters and approximately 3.2 ac (1.29 ha) of wetlands. The 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.15 Biological Resources and Wetlands 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.15-50

UPRR alignment alternative is adjacent to gravel pits filled with water, as well as Arroyo Mocho and 

other streams and water bodies. 

Conservation Plans 

The UPRR alignment alternative could adversely impact the East San Francisco Bay Core Area 

identified in the Recovery Plan for the California Red-legged Frog (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2002). 

Tracy Downtown (BNSF Connection) Alignment Alternative 

The Tracy Downtown (BNSF Connection) alignment alternative could have direct impacts on 150.02 

ac (60.71 ha) of agricultural lands, 62.57 ac (25.32 ha) of grasslands, 0.09 ac (0.04 ha) of oak 

woodland/foothill pine, 1.26 ac (0.51 ha) of open waters, 0.05 ac (0.02 ha) of permanent freshwater 

marsh, 0.14 ac (0.06 ha) of riparian habitat, 0.50 ac (0.20 ha) of seasonal wetlands, and 90.23 ac 

(36.51 ha) of urban/other developed lands. This alignment alternative could have indirect impacts on 

8,644.54 ac (3,498.34 ha) of agricultural lands, 3,749.38 ac (1,517.33 ha) of grasslands, 3.41 ac 

(1.38 ha) of oak and foothill pine woodlands, 80.72 ac (32.67 ha) of open waters, 11.48 ac (4.65 ha) 

of permanent freshwater wetlands, 5.53 ac (2.24 ha) of riparian habitat, 34.55 ac (13.98 ha) of 

seasonal wetlands, 0.15 ac (0.06 ha) of shrub lands, and 3,563.73 ac (1,442.2 ha) of urban/other 

developed lands. 

Sensitive Vegetation Communities 

The sensitive vegetation communities in this alignment alternative are oak woodlands, riparian, 

permanent freshwater marsh, permanent freshwater wetlands, and seasonal wetlands. 

Special-Status Plants 

The Tracy Downtown (BNSF Connection) alignment alternative could adversely affect the habitat of 

18 special-status plant species (Table 3.15-1). 

Special-Status Wildlife 

The Tracy Downtown (BNFS Connection) alignment alternative could adversely affect the habitat of 

27 special-status wildlife species, including species of invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, raptors and 

other birds, and mammals (Table 3.15-1). This is the same as the Tracy ACE (BNSF Connection) and 

Tracy ACE (UPRR Connection) alignment alternatives. This alignment alternative also has the 

potential to impact marine/anadromous species. 

Wildlife Movement Corridors 

Impacts on wildlife movement corridors from this alignment alternative would be the same as for the 

I-680/580/UPRR alignment alternative. 

Water Resources/Wetlands 

This alignment alternative has the potential to directly impact approximately 6,290 ft of potential 

nonwetland jurisdictional waters and approximately 4.4 ac (1.78 ha) of wetlands. The Tracy 

Downtown (BNFS Connection) alignment alternative crosses the San Joaquin River twice and crosses 

or is adjacent to several streams, canals, and other water bodies. 

Conservation Plans 

The Tracy Downtown (BNSF Connection) alignment alternative would not adversely affect habitats or 

species identified in any conservation plans. 

Tracy ACE Station (BNSF Connection) Alignment Alternative 

The Tracy ACE Station (BNSF Connection) alignment alternative could have direct impacts on 137.74 

ac (55.74 ha) of agricultural lands, 84.62 ac (34.24 ha) of grasslands, 0.34 ac (0.14 ha) of oak 

woodland/foothill pine, 3.22 ac (1.3 ha) of open waters, 0.33 ac (0.13 ha) of permanent freshwater 

marsh, 0.45 ac (0.18 ha) of riparian habitat, 1.03 ac (0.42 ha) of seasonal wetlands, and 78.18 ac 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.15 Biological Resources and Wetlands 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.15-51

(31.64 ha) of urban/other developed lands. This alignment alternative could have indirect impacts on 

8,123.27 ac (3,287.38 ha) of agricultural lands, 4,816.88 ac (1,949.33 ha) of grasslands, 7.11 ac 

(2.88 ha) of oak and foothill pine woodlands, 170.86 ac (69.14 ha) of open waters, 19.84 ac 

(8.03 ha) of permanent freshwater wetlands, 31.04 ac (12.56 ha) of riparian habitat, 38.98 ac 

(15.77 ha) of seasonal wetlands, and 3,402.73 ac (1,377.04 ha) of urban/other developed lands. 

Sensitive Vegetation Communities 

The sensitive vegetation communities in this alignment alternative are oak woodlands, riparian, 

permanent freshwater marsh, permanent freshwater wetlands, and seasonal wetlands. 

Special-Status Plants 

The Tracy ACE Station (BNSF Connection) alignment alternative could adversely affect the habitat of 

21 special-status plant species (Table 3.15-1). Of the 21 species identified, 18 are also in the Tracy 

Downtown (BNSF Connection) alignment alternative. 

Special-Status Wildlife 

The Tracy ACE Station (BNSF Connection) alignment alternative could adversely affect the habitat of 

27 special-status wildlife species, including species of invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, raptors and 

other birds, and mammals (Table 3.15-1). This alignment alternative also has the potential to impact 

marine/anadromous species. 

Wildlife Movement Corridors 

Impacts on wildlife movement corridors from this alignment alternative would be the same as for the 

I-680/580/UPRR alignment alternative. 

Water Resources/Wetlands 

This alignment alternative has the potential to directly impact approximately 7,678 ft (2,340 m) of 

potential nonwetland jurisdictional waters and approximately 3.6 ac (1.46 ha) of wetlands. The Tracy 

ACE Station (BNSF Connection) alignment alternative also crosses the San Joaquin River twice and 

crosses or is adjacent to several streams, canals, and other water bodies. 

Conservation Plans 

The Tracy ACE Station (BNSF Connection) alignment alternative would not adversely affect habitats 

or species identified in any conservation plans. 

Tracy ACE Station (UPRR Connection) Alignment Alternative 

The Tracy ACE Station (UPRR Connection) alignment alternative could have direct impacts on 50.16 

ac (20.3 ha) of agricultural lands, 52.63 ac (21.3 ha) of grasslands, 0.09 ac (0.04 ha) of oak 

woodland/foothill pine, 2.73 ac (1.1 ha) of open waters, 0.13 ac (0.05 ha) of permanent freshwater 

marsh, 0.31 ac (0.13 ha) of riparian habitat, 0.53 ac (0.21 ha) of seasonal wetlands, and 72.65 ac 

(29.4 ha) of urban/other developed lands. This alignment alternative could have indirect impacts on 

2,951.15 ac (1,194.29 ha) of agricultural lands, 3,264.93 ac (1,321.28 ha) of grasslands, 6.63 ac 

(2.68 ha) of oak and foothill pine woodlands, 90.89 ac (36.78 ha) of open waters, 8.39 ac (3.4 ha) of 

permanent freshwater wetlands, 17.99 ac (7.28 ha) of riparian habitat, 13.63 ac (5.52 ha) of 

seasonal wetlands, and 3,202.19 ac (1,295.89 ha) of urban/other developed lands. 

Sensitive Vegetation Communities 

The sensitive vegetation communities in this alignment alternative are oak woodlands, riparian, 

permanent freshwater marsh, permanent freshwater wetlands, and seasonal wetlands. 

Special-Status Plants 

The Tracy ACE Station (UPRR Connection) alignment alternative could adversely affect the habitat of 

20 special-status plant species (Table 3.15-1). Of the 20 species identified, 18 are also in the Tracy 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.15 Biological Resources and Wetlands 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.15-52

Downtown (BNSF Connection) alignment alternative and 18 are in the Tracy ACE Station (BNSF 

Connection) alignment alternative. 

Special-Status Wildlife 

The Tracy ACE Station (UPRR Connection) alignment alternative could adversely affect the habitat of 

the same 27 special-status wildlife species as the Tracy ACE (BNSF Station) alignment alternative. 

This alignment alternative also has the potential to impact marine/anadromous species. 

Wildlife Movement Corridors 

Impacts on wildlife movement corridors from this alignment alternative would be the same as for the 

I-680/580/UPRR alignment alternative. 

Water Resources/Wetlands 

This alignment has the potential to directly impact approximately 5,325 ft (1,623 m) of potential 

nonwetland jurisdictional waters and approximately 2.6 ac (1.05 ha) of wetlands. The Tracy ACE 

Station (UPRR Connection) alignment alternative crosses the San Joaquin River, Tom Paine Slough, 

and several other streams, canals, and water bodies. 

Conservation Plans 

The Tracy ACE Station (UPRR Connection) alignment alternative would not adversely affect habitats 

or species identified in any conservation plans. 

Tracy Downtown (UPRR Connection) Alignment Alternative 

The Tracy Downtown (UPRR Connection) alignment alternative could have direct impacts on 76.16 ac 

(30.82 ha) of agricultural lands, 39.36 ac (15.93 ha) of grasslands, 0.09 ac (0.04 ha) of oak 

woodland/foothill pine, 1.26 ac (0.51 ha) of open waters, 0.05 ac (0.02 ha) of permanent freshwater 

marsh, 0.14 ac (0.06 ha) of riparian habitat, 0.06 ac (0.02 ha) of seasonal wetlands, and 99.69 ac 

(40.34 ha) of urban/other developed lands. This alignment alternative could have indirect impacts on 

4,389.32 ac (1,776.3 ha) of agricultural lands, 2,661.16 ac (1,076.94 ha) of grasslands, 4.30 ac 

(1.74 ha) of oak and foothill pine woodlands, 73.34 ac (29.68 ha) of open waters, 6.79 ac (2.75 ha) 

of permanent freshwater wetlands, 5.53 ac (2.24 ha) of riparian habitat, 17.79 ac (7.2 ha) of 

seasonal wetlands, 0.15 ac (0.06 ha) of shrub lands, and 3,939.67 ac (1,594.33 ha) of urban/other 

developed lands. 

Sensitive Vegetation Communities 

The sensitive vegetation communities in this alignment alternative are oak woodlands, riparian, 

permanent freshwater marsh, permanent freshwater wetlands, and seasonal wetlands. 

Special-Status Plants 

The Tracy Downtown (UPRR Connection) alignment alternative could adversely affect the habitat of 

22 special-status plant species (Table 3.15-1). 

Special-Status Wildlife 

The Tracy Downtown (UPRR Connection) alignment alternative could adversely affect the habitat of 

the same 27 special-status wildlife species as the Tracy ACE (BNSF Connection), Tracy ACE (UPRR 

Connection), and Tracy Downtown (BNSF Connection) alignment alternative. This alignment 

alternative also has the potential to impact marine/anadromous species. 

Wildlife Movement Corridors 

Impacts on wildlife movement corridors from this alignment alternative would be the same as for the 

I-680/580/UPRR alignment alternative. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.15 Biological Resources and Wetlands 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.15-53

Water Resources/Wetlands 

This alignment alternative has the potential to directly impact approximately 7,500 ft (2,286 m) of 

potential nonwetland jurisdictional waters and approximately 4.2 ac (1.7 ha) of wetlands. The Tracy 

Downtown (UPRR Connection) alignment alternative crosses the San Joaquin River twice, Tom Paine 

Slough, and a number of other streams, canals, and water bodies. 

Conservation Plans 

The Tracy Downtown (UPRR Connection) alignment alternative would not adversely affect habitats or 

species identified in any conservation plans. 

East Bay Connections Alignment Alternative 

The East Bay Connections alignment alternative could have direct impacts on 16.2 ac (6.56 ha) of 

grasslands, 48.8 ac (19.75 ha) of grasslands, 4.6 ac (1.86 ha) of oak woodland/foothill pine, 1.0 ac 

(0.4 ha) of shrub lands, and 18.4 ac (7.44 ha) of urban/other developed lands. This alignment 

alternative could have indirect impacts on 310 ac (125.45 ha) of grasslands, 116.1 ac (46.98 ha) of 

oak and foothill pine woodlands, 17.8 ac (7.2 ha) of shrub lands, and 397.4 ac (160.82 ha) of 

urban/other developed lands. 

Sensitive Vegetation Communities 

The sensitive vegetation communities in this alignment alternative are oak woodlands. 

Special-Status Plants 

The East Bay Connections alignment alternative would not adversely affect the habitat of any specialstatus plant species. 

Special-Status Wildlife 

The East Bay Connections Alignment would not adversely affect the habitat of any special-status 

wildlife species. 

Wildlife Movement Corridors 

Impacts on wildlife movement corridors from this alignment alternative would be the same as the 

West Oakland to Niles Junction alignment alternative. 

Water Resources/Wetlands 

This alignment has the potential to directly impact approximately 375 ft (114 m) of potential 

nonwetland jurisdictional waters and approximately 1.2 ac (0.49 ha) of wetlands. The East Bay 

Connections alignment alternative crosses Niles Canyon and Morrison Canyon. 

Conservation Plans 

Impacts on habitats and species identified in conservation plans from this alignment would be the 

same as for the I-680/580/UPRR alignment alternative. 

East Bay to Central Valley Corridor Stations 

• Pleasanton (I-680/Bernal) Station: This station location option could have direct impacts on 6.4 

ac (2.59 ha) of urban/other developed lands. This station location option could have indirect 

impacts on 10 ac (4.04 ha) of grasslands, 0.05 ac (0.02 ha) of shrubland, and 147 ac (59.49 ha) 

of urban/other developed lands. Impacts on special-status plant and wildlife species, waters, 

wetlands, and marine/anadromous species are not anticipated with this station location option. 

• Pleasanton (BART) Station: This station location option could have direct impacts on 2.1 ac 

(0.85 ha) of grasslands and 9.4 ac (3.8 ha) of urban/other developed lands. This station location 

option could have indirect impacts on 98 ac (39.66 ha) of grasslands and 143 ac (57.87 ha) of 

urban/other developed lands. This station location option could adversely affect the habitat of 

one special-status plant species. This station location option could impact 482 linear ft (147 m) 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.15 Biological Resources and Wetlands 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.15-54

of waters. Impacts on special-status plant and wildlife species, wetlands, and 

marine/anadromous species are not anticipated with this station location option. 

• Livermore (Downtown): This station location option could have direct impacts on 9.8 ac 

(3.97 ha) of urban/other developed lands. This station location option could have indirect 

impacts on 0.1 ac (0.04 ha) of open water, 1 ac (0.4 ha) of grasslands, and 148 ac (59.89 ha) of 

urban/other developed lands. Impacts on special-status plant and wildlife species, waters, 

wetlands, and marine/anadromous species are not anticipated with this station location option. 

• Livermore (I-580) Station: This station location option could have direct impacts on 3 ac 

(1.21 ha) of grasslands and 4.9 ac (1.98 ha) urban/other developed lands. This station location 

option could have indirect impacts on 25 ac (10.11 ha) of agricultural land, 114 ac (46.13 ha) of 

grasslands, and 152 ac (61.51 ha) of urban/other developed lands. This station could impact 1 

ac (0.4 ha) of potential wetlands. Impacts on special-status plant and wildlife species, waters, 

and marine/anadromous species are not anticipated with this station location option. 

Livermore (Greenville Road/UPRR) Station: This station location option could have direct impacts on 

2.12 ac (0.86 ha) of grasslands and 7.94 ac (3.21 ha) of urban/other developed lands. This station 

option could have indirect impacts on 62.09 ac (25.13 ha) of grasslands, and 124.6 ac (50.43 ha) of 

urban/other developed lands. Impacts on special-status plant and wildlife species, waters, wetlands, 

and marine/anadromous species are not anticipated with this station location option. 

• Livermore (Greenville Road/I-580) Station: This station location option could have direct impacts 

on 4.5 ac (1.82 ha) of grasslands and 4 ac (1.61 ha) of urban/other developed lands. This 

station could have indirect impacts on 10 ac (4.04 ha) of agricultural lands, 139 ac (56.25 ha) of 

grasslands, and 145 ac (58.68 ha) of urban/other developed lands. This station could impact 72 

linear ft (22 m) of waters and 1.07 ac (0.43 ha) of potential wetlands. Impacts on special-status 

plant and wildlife species and marine/anadromous species are not anticipated with this station 

location option. 

• Tracy (Downtown) Station: This station location option could have direct impacts on 7.5 ac 

(3.04 ha) of urban/other developed lands. This station location option could have indirect 

impacts on 11 ac (4.45 ha) of agricultural lands, 0.2 ac (0.08 ha) of grasslands, and 146 ac 

(59.08 ha) of urban/other developed lands. Impacts on special-status plant and wildlife species, 

waters, wetlands, and marine/anadromous species are not anticipated with this station location 

option. 

• Tracy (ACE) Station: This station location option could have direct impacts on 0.2 ac (0.08 ha) of 

agricultural lands and 10 ac (4.04 ha) of urban/other developed lands. This station location 

option could have indirect impacts on 86 ac (34.8 ha) of agricultural lands, 35 ac (14.16 ha) of 

grasslands, and 133 ac (53.82 ha) of urban/other developed lands. This station location option 

could impact 0.08 ac (0.03 ha) of potential wetlands. Impacts on special-status plant and wildlife 

species, waters, and marine/anadromous species are not anticipated with this station location 

option. 

Summary of East Bay to Central Valley Corridor Impacts 

Sensitive Vegetation Communities 

The sensitive vegetation communities in the I-680/580/UPRR, I-580/UPRR, Patterson Pass/UPRR, and 

UPRR alignment alternatives are the same and include oak woodlands. The sensitive vegetation 

communities in the Tracy Downtown and Tracy ACE alignment alternatives are the same and include 

oak woodlands, riparian, permanent freshwater marsh, permanent freshwater wetlands, and seasonal 

wetlands. 

Special-Status Plants 

The I-680/I-580/UPRR and I-580/UPRR alignment alternatives could adversely affect the greatest 

number of special-status plant species. The Patterson Pass/UPRR alignment alternative would not 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.15 Biological Resources and Wetlands 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.15-55

adversely affect the Mt. Hamilton thistle, the recurved larkspur, the rose-mallow, or the showy madia. 

The UPRR alignment alternative would not adversely affect the palmate-bracted bird’s-beak. 

Special-Status Wildlife 

The I-680/I-580/UPRR and I-580/UPRR alignment alternatives could adversely affect the greatest 

number of special-status wildlife species. The Patterson Pass/UPRR and UPRR alignment alternatives 

would not adversely affect potential habitat for longhorn fairy shrimp, but the I-680/I-580/UPRR and 

I-580/UPRR alignment alternatives could adversely affect this habitat. 

The Tracy ACE (BNSF Connection), Tracy ACE (UPRR Connection), Tracy Downtown (UPRR 

Connection), and Tracy Downtown (BNSF Connection) alignment alternatives could adversely impact 

the same special-status wildlife species. 

Wildlife Movement Corridors 

The I-680/I-580/UPRR, I-580/UPRR, Patterson Pass/UPRR, and UPRR alignment alternatives would 

bisect the major San Joaquin kit fox movement corridor between the southern portion of its range 

and the northern portion of its range along the west side of the San Joaquin Valley. This also applies 

to the Tracy ACE Station (BNSF Connection), Tracy ACE Station (UPRR Connection), Tracy Downtown 

(BNSF Connection), and Tracy Downtown (UPRR Connection) alignment alternatives. 

Water Resources 

This corridor has the potential to directly impact between approximately 7,075 ft (2,156 m) and 

10,660 ft (3,249 m) of potential nonwetland jurisdictional waters and between approximately 4.5 ac 

(1.82 ha) and 10.8 ac (4.37 ha) of wetlands. 

Conservation Plans 

The I-680/I-580/UPRR and the I-580/UPRR alignment alternatives could adversely affect the 

Altamont Hills core area identified in the Recovery Plan for Vernal Pool Ecosystems, but the Patterson 

Pass/UPRR and the UPRR alignment alternatives would not adversely affect this core area. All four of 

these alignment alternatives could adversely impact the East San Francisco Bay Core Area identified 

in the Recovery Plan for the California Red-Legged Frog. 

The Tracy ACE Station (BNSF Connection), Tracy ACE Station (UPRR Connection), Tracy Downtown 

(BNSF Connection), and Tracy Downtown (UPRR Connection) alignment alternatives are not 

anticipated to affect habitats or species identified in any conservation plans. 

San Francisco Bay Crossings

Trans Bay Crossing – Transbay Transit Center Alignment Alternative 

The Trans Bay Crossing – Transbay Transit Center alignment alternative extends in a tube from the 

Oakland Inner Harbor to the City of San Francisco, crossing San Francisco Bay en route. If this 

alignment alternative were not constructed as a bored tunnel, it could have direct impacts on 22.1 ac 

(8.94 ha) of bay waters, 0.11 ac (0.04 ha) of grasslands, 1.6 ac (0.65 ha) of saline-brackish 

permanent wetlands, and 17.3 ac (7 ha) of urban/other developed lands. This alignment alternative 

could also have indirect impacts on 1,320.6 ac (534.46 ha) of bay waters, 0.22 ac (0.09 ha) of 

grasslands, 1.3 ac (0.52 ha) of open waters, 44.3 ac (17.93 ha) of saline-brackish permanent 

wetlands, and 659 ac (266.69 ha) of urban/other developed lands. 

Sensitive Vegetation Communities 

The sensitive vegetation community in this alignment alternative is the saline-brackish permanent 

wetlands. If this alignment alternative were constructed in a tunnel, impacts would likely not occur. 

Depending on construction technique, this alignment alternative may impact eelgrass habitat in the 

San Francisco Bay. The habitat for eelgrass is generally located at a depth of 2 m. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.15 Biological Resources and Wetlands 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.15-56

Special-Status Plants 

The Trans Bay Crossing – Transbay Transit Center alignment alternative could adversely affect the 

habitat of one special-status plant species, the beach layia. As noted above, and if this alignment 

alternative were constructed in a tunnel, impacts on this species would likely not occur. 

Special-Status Wildlife 

This alignment alternative is not anticipated to adversely affect the habitat of special-status wildlife 

species or impact marine/anadromous species if it were constructed in a tunnel. Other tube 

construction methods could result in impacts on marine/anadromous species. 

Wildlife Movement Corridors 

The Trans Bay Crossing – Transbay Transit Center alignment alternative is not anticipated to impact 

wildlife movement corridors if constructed as a bored tunnel. If constructed as a trench on the floor 

of San Francisco Bay, sediment disturbance from construction could affect some fish species, 

including the Pacific herring. This alignment alternative could also adversely impact the movement 

corridors along the west and east shores of the San Francisco Bay. 

Water Resources/Wetlands 

This alignment alternative has the potential to directly impact approximately 22.83 ac (9.24 ha) of 

wetlands. Depending on construction methods, such as trenching, the crossing could result in 

substantial impacts on Bay waters and wetlands. 

Conservation Plans 

The Trans Bay Crossing – Transbay Transit Center alignment alternative would not adversely impact 

areas identified in conservation plans. 

Trans Bay Crossing –4th & King Alignment Alternative 

Similar to the Trans Bay Crossing – Transbay Transit Center alignment alternative, the Trans Bay 

Crossing – 4th & King alignment alternative extends in a tube from the Oakland Inner Harbor to the 

City of San Francisco, crossing San Francisco Bay en route. This alignment alternative could have 

direct impacts on 20.07 ac (8.12 ha) of bay waters, 0.11 ac (0.04 ha) of grasslands, 1.62 ac 

(0.66 ha) of saline-brackish permanent wetlands, and 17.75 ac (7.18 ha) of urban/other developed 

lands. This alignment alternative could have indirect impacts on 1,240.83 ac (502.15 ha) of bay 

waters, 0.22 ac (0.09 ha) of grasslands, 1.34 ac (0.54 ha) of open waters, 44.34 ac (17.94 ha) of 

saline-brackish permanent wetlands, and 682.06 ac (276.02 ha) of urban/other developed lands. 

Sensitive Vegetation Communities 

The sensitive vegetation community in this alignment alternative is the saline-brackish permanent 

wetlands and eelgrass habitat. 

Special-Status Plants 

The Trans Bay Crossing – 4th & King alignment alternative could adversely affect the habitat of one 

special-status plant species, the beach layia (Table 3.15-1). 

Special-Status Wildlife 

This alignment alternative is not anticipated to adversely affect the habitat of special-status wildlife 

species or impact marine/anadromous species if the alignment is constructed in a tunnel. 

Wildlife Movement Corridors 

Similar to the Trans Bay Crossing-Transbay Transit Center Alignment, this alignment alternative is not 

anticipated to impact wildlife movement corridors if constructed as a bored tunnel. If constructed as 

a trench on the floor of San Francisco Bay, sediment disturbance from construction could affect some 

fish species, including the Pacific herring. This alignment alternative could also adversely impact the 

movement corridors along the west and east shores of the San Francisco Bay. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.15 Biological Resources and Wetlands 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.15-57

Water Resources/Wetlands 

This alignment alternative has the potential to directly impact approximately 22.04 ac (8.92 ha) of 

wetlands. Regardless of construction methods, the crossing would still result in substantial impacts 

on Bay waters and wetlands. 

Conservation Plans 

The Trans Bay Crossing – 4th & King alignment alternative would not adversely impact areas 

identified in conservation plans. 

Dumbarton (High Bridge, Low Bridge, and Tube) Alignment Alternative 

The Dumbarton (High Bridge, Low Bridge, and Tube) alignment alternative could have direct impacts 

on 3.8 ac (1.54 ha) of bay waters, 6.2 ac (2.51 ha) of grasslands, 1.9 ac (0.77 ha) of oak 

woodland/foothill pine, 0.7 ac (0.28 ha) of open waters, 14.6 ac (5.91 ha) of saline-brackish 

permanent wetlands, 5.3 ac (2.14 ha) of salt flats, 4.3 ac (1.74 ha) of seasonal wetlands, 0.16 ac 

(0.06 ha) of shrub lands, 5.4 ac (2.19 ha) of unvegetated flats, and 70.6 ac (28.57 ha) of 

urban/other developed lands. This alignment alternative could have indirect impacts on 213.5 ac 

(86.4 ha) of bay waters, 322.0 ac (130.31 ha) of grasslands, 7.1 ac (2.87 ha) of managed bay marsh, 

81.1 ac (32.82 ha) of oak and foothill pine woodlands, 59.4 ac (24.04 ha) of open waters, 599.8 ac 

(242.73 ha) of saline-brackish permanent wetlands, 416.1 ac (168.39 ha) of salt ponds, 138.6 ac 

(56.09 ha) of seasonal wetlands, 25.3 ac (10.24 ha) of shrub lands, 215.6 ac (87.25 ha) of 

unvegetated flats, and 3,145.5 ac (1,272.94 ha) of urban/other developed lands. 

Sensitive Vegetation Communities 

The sensitive vegetation communities in this alignment alternative include eelgrass habitat in the Bay 

and oak woodlands, riparian, permanent freshwater marsh, permanent freshwater wetlands, salinebrackish permanent, and seasonal wetlands. 

Special-Status Plants 

The Dumbarton (High Bridge, Low Bridge, and Tube) alignment alternative could adversely affect the 

habitat of 15 special-status plant species (Table 3.15-1). 

Special-Status Wildlife 

The Dumbarton (High Bridge, Low Bridge, and Tube) alignment alternative could adversely affect the 

habitat of 21 special-status wildlife species, including species of reptiles, shorebirds, and small 

mammals (Table 3.15-1). This alignment also has the potential to impact marine/anadromous 

species. 

Wildlife Movement Corridors 

The Dumbarton (High Bridge, Low Bridge, and Tube) alignment alternative could adversely impact 

the movement corridors in San Francisco Bay and along the west and east shores of the San 

Francisco Bay. 

Water Resources/Wetlands 

This alignment alternative has the potential to directly impact approximately 2,360 ft (719 m) of 

potential nonwetland jurisdictional waters and approximately 34 ac (13.76 ha) of wetlands. 

Regardless of type of construction, either bridge or tube, the crossing would still result in substantial 

impacts on Bay waters and wetlands. 

Conservation Plans 

The Dumbarton (High Bridge, Low Bridge, and Tube) alignment alternative would not adversely 

impact areas identified in conservation plans. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.15 Biological Resources and Wetlands 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.15-58

Fremont Central Park (High Bridge, Low Bridge, and Tube) Alignment Alternative 

The Fremont Central Park (High Bridge, Low Bridge, and Tube) alignment alternative could have 

direct impacts on 4.48 ac (1.81 ha) of agricultural lands, 3.84 ac (1.55 ha) of bay lands, 3.20 ac 

(1.29 ha) of grasslands, 4.82 ac (1.95 ha) of open waters, 14.02 ac (5.67 ha) of saline-brackish 

permanent wetlands, 14.61 ac (5.91 ha) of salt flats, 3.07 ac (1.24 ha) of seasonal wetlands, 0.04 ac 

(0.02 ha) of shrub lands, 5.39 ac (2.18 ha) of unvegetated flats, and 53.93 ac (21.82 ha) of 

urban/other developed lands. This alignment alternative could have indirect impacts on 191.21 ac 

(77.38 ha) of agricultural lands, 213.53 ac (86.41 ha) of bay waters, 130.82 ac (52.94 ha) of 

grasslands, 7.10 ac (2.87 ha) of managed bay marsh, 267.81 ac (108.38 ha) of open waters, 615.21 

ac (248.97 ha) of saline-brackish permanent wetlands, 903.90 ac (365.80 ha) of salt ponds, 104.39 

ac (42.25 ha) of seasonal wetlands, 0.17 ac (0.07 ha) of shrub land, 215.24 ac (87.10 ha) of 

unvegetated flats, and 2,300.08 ac (930.81 ha) of urban/other developed lands. 

Sensitive Vegetation Communities 

The sensitive vegetation communities in this alignment alternative include eelgrass habitat in the Bay 

and oak woodlands, riparian, permanent freshwater marsh, permanent freshwater wetlands, salinebrackish permanent wetlands, and seasonal wetlands. 

Special-Status Plants 

The Fremont Central Park (High Bridge, Low Bridge, and Tube) alignment alternative could adversely 

affect the habitat of 16 special-status wildlife species (Table 3.15-1). 

Special-Status Wildlife 

The Fremont Central Park (High Bridge, Low Bridge, and Tube) alignment alternative could adversely 

affect the habitat of 23 special-status wildlife species, including species of aquatic invertebrates, 

amphibians, reptiles, shorebirds, and small mammals (Table 3.15-1). Species with limited habitats or 

ranges, such as the aquatic invertebrates, would be of special concern because of the adverse effects 

that even a small impact to their habitat could cause. This alignment alternative also has the 

potential to impact marine/anadromous species. 

Wildlife Movement Corridors 

The Fremont Central Park (High Bridge, Low Bridge, and Tube) alignment alternative could adversely 

impact the movement corridors in San Francisco Bay and along the west and east shores of the San 

Francisco Bay. 

Water Resources/Wetlands 

This alignment alternative has the potential to directly impact approximately 3,120 ft (951 m) of 

potential nonwetland jurisdictional waters and approximately 55.4 ac (22.42 ha) of wetlands. Similar 

to the Dumbarton alignment alternative, both the bridge and tube crossing would result in substantial 

impacts on Bay waters and wetlands. 

Conservation Plans 

The Fremont Central Park (High Bridge, Low Bridge, and Tube) alignment alternative would not 

adversely impact any areas identified in conservation plans. 

Special Management Areas 

The Fremont Central Park alignment alternative could adversely impact areas of the Don Edwards 

San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge. 

Summary of San Francisco Bay Crossings Impacts 

Sensitive Vegetation Communities 

Both of the Transbay Crossing alignment alternatives have the potential to impact Bay waters, salinebrackish permanent wetlands, and eelgrass habitat. As noted above, and if these alignment 

alternatives are constructed in a tunnel, impacts would likely not occur. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.15 Biological Resources and Wetlands 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.15-59

The sensitive vegetation communities within the Dumbarton and Freemont Central Park alignment 

alternatives include eelgrass, oak woodlands, riparian, permanent freshwater marsh, permanent 

freshwater wetlands, saline-brackish permanent, and seasonal wetlands 

Special-Status Plants and Wildlife 

The Trans Bay Crossing alignment alternatives could adversely affect the habitat of one special-status 

plant species. If either of these alignment alternatives were constructed in a tunnel, impacts on this 

species would likely not occur. These alignment alternatives are not anticipated to adversely affect 

the habitat of special-status wildlife species if constructed in a tunnel. 

The Fremont Central Park alignment alternatives would have a greater direct and indirect impact to 

the natural areas on the east side of San Francisco Bay than the Dumbarton alignment alternatives. 

These natural areas include Bay lands, saline-brackish permanent wetlands, salt flats, salt ponds, and 

unvegetated flats. These habitats are crucial for a number of special-status plant and wildlife species 

that occur around the San Francisco Bay, including salt marsh harvest mouse and California clapper 

rail. The Fremont Central Park alignment alternatives could also adversely affect habitat for vernal 

pool tadpole shrimp and California tiger salamander, while the Dumbarton alignment alternatives 

would not. 

Wildlife Movement Corridors 

The Trans Bay Crossing alignment alternatives and the Dumbarton and Fremont Central Park 

alignment alternatives could adversely affect the wildlife movement corridors along the west and east 

shores of the San Francisco Bay as well as the Bay itself. 

Water Resources/Wetlands 

The Trans Bay Crossing – Transbay Transit Center alignment alternative has the potential to directly 

affect slightly more wetlands than the Trans Bay Crossing – 4th & King alignment alternative. 

Regardless of construction methods such as trenching, either crossing could result in substantial 

impacts on Bay waters and wetlands. 

The Freemont Central Park alignment alternative would result in higher potential impacts to Bay 

waters and wetlands than the Dumbarton alignment alternative. 

Conservation Plans 

The Trans Bay Crossing alignment alternatives and the Dumbarton and Fremont Central Park 

alignment alternatives are not anticipated to adversely impact any areas identified in conservation 

plans. Each of these alignment alternatives would be subject to BCDC requirements and be 

coordinated with on-going Bay planning efforts. 

Special Management Areas 

The Fremont Central Park alignment alternative could have negative impacts on the Don Edwards 

San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge, while the Dumbarton alignment alternatives would not. 

Central Valley Corridor

BNSF – UPRR Alignment Alternative 

The BNSF – UPRR alignment alternative could have direct impacts on 190.89 ac (77.25 ha) of 

agricultural lands, 69.27 ac (28.03 ha) of grasslands, 2.00 ac (0.81 ha) of open waters, 0.13 ac 

(0.05 ha) of permanent freshwater marsh, 0.67 ac (0.27 ha) of riparian habitat, 0.20 ac (0.08 ha) of 

seasonal wetlands, and 262.51 ac (106.23 ha) of urban/other developed lands. This alignment could 

have indirect impacts on 15,115.94 ac (6,116.01 ha) of agricultural lands, 4,353.57 ac (1,761.83 ha) 

of grasslands, 114.42 ac (46.30 ha) of open waters, 17.88 ac (7.24 ha) of permanent freshwater 

wetlands, 69.75 ac (28.22 ha) of riparian habitats, 27.13 ac (10.98 ha) of seasonal wetlands, and 

8,353.92 ac (3,380.73 ha) of urban/other developed lands. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.15 Biological Resources and Wetlands 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.15-60

Sensitive Vegetation Communities 

The sensitive vegetation communities within this alignment alternative are riparian, permanent 

freshwater marsh, permanent freshwater wetlands, and seasonal wetlands. 

Special-Status Plants 

The BNSF-UPRR alignment alternative could adversely affect the habitat of 22 special-status plant 

species (Table 3.15-1). 

Special-Status Wildlife 

The BNSF-UPRR alignment alternative could adversely affect the habitat of 22 special-status wildlife 

species, including species of aquatic invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, shorebirds, and small 

mammals (Table 3.15-1). Species with limited habitats or ranges, such as the aquatic invertebrates 

and the riparian brush rabbit, would also be of special concern because of the adverse effects that 

even a small impact to their habitat could cause. This alignment alternative also has the potential to 

impact marine/anadromous species. 

Wildlife Movement Corridors 

The BNSF-UPRR alignment alternative would bisect an east-west linkage corridor between the natural 

lands of the Central Valley (GEA and associated wildlife refuges) with the natural lands along the 

eastern side of the San Joaquin Valley. 

Water Resources/Wetlands 

This alignment alternative has the potential to directly impact approximately 10,140 ft (3,091 m) of 

potential nonwetland jurisdictional waters and approximately 3.8 ac (1.54 ha) of wetlands. The 

BNSF-UPRR alignment alternative crosses the Stanislaus River, San Joaquin River, Tuolumne River, 

Merced River, Chowchilla River, and a several streams, canals, and other water bodies. 

Conservation Plans 

The BNSF-UPRR alignment alternative would not adversely impact areas identified in conservation 

plans. 

BNSF Alignment Alternative 

The BNSF alignment alternative could have direct impacts on 262.26 ac (106.13 ha) of agricultural 

lands, 70.03 ac (28.34 ha) of grasslands, 0.59 ac (0.24 ha) of montane hardwood, 4.43 ac (1.79 ha) 

of oak woodland/foothill pine, 1.62 ac (0.66 ha) of open waters, 0.12 ac (0.05 ha) of permanent 

freshwater marsh, 0.67 ac (0.27 ha) of riparian habitat, 0.20 ac (0.08 ha) of seasonal wetlands, 1.22 

ac (0.49 ha) of shrub lands, and 205.08 ac (82.99 ha) of urban/other developed lands. This 

alignment alternative could have indirect impacts on 17,311.87 ac (7,005.89 ha) of agricultural lands, 

4,341.78 ac (1,757.06 ha) of grasslands, 97.60 ac (39.50 ha) of montane hardwood, 187.85 ac 

(76.02 ha) of oak and foothill pine woodlands, 104.22 ac (42.18 ha) of open waters, 15.13 ac 

(6.12 ha) of permanent freshwater wetlands, 62.73 ac (25.79 ha) of riparian habitats, 24.51 ac 

(9.92 ha) of seasonal wetlands, 44.60 ac (18.04 ha) of shrub lands, and 7,306.42 ac (2,956.82 ha) of 

urban/other developed lands. 

Sensitive Vegetation Communities 

The sensitive vegetation communities within this alignment alternative are riparian, permanent 

freshwater marsh, permanent freshwater wetlands, oak woodlands, and seasonal wetlands. 

Special-Status Plants 

The BNSF alignment alternative could adversely affect the habitat of 22 special-status plant species 

(Table 3.15-1). Of the 22 species identified, 21 would the same as for the BNSF-UPRR alignment 

alternative. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.15 Biological Resources and Wetlands 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.15-61

Special-Status Wildlife 

The BNSF alignment alternative could adversely affect the habitat of the same 22 special-status 

wildlife species as the BNSF-UPRR alignment alternative. This alignment alternative also has the 

potential to impact marine/anadromous species. 

Wildlife Movement Corridors 

Impacts to wildlife movement corridors for this alignment alternative would be the same as for the 

BNSF alignment alternative. 

Water Resources/Wetlands 

This alignment alternative has the potential to directly impact approximately 10,140 ft (3,090.67 m) 

of potential nonwetland jurisdictional waters and approximately 3.8 ac (1.54 ha) of wetlands. Similar 

to the BNSF-UPRR alignment alternative, this alignment alternative crosses the Stanislaus River, San 

Joaquin River, Tuolumne River, Merced River, Chowchilla River, and several streams, canals, and 

other water bodies. 

Conservation Plans 

The BNSF alignment alternative would not adversely impact areas identified in conservation plans. 

UPRR N/S Alignment Alternative 

The UPRR N/S alignment alternative could have direct impacts on 66.87 ac (27.06 ha) of agricultural 

lands, 42.28 ac (17.11 ha) of grasslands, 0.61 ac (0.25 ha) of open waters, 0.01 ac (0.004 ha) of 

permanent freshwater marsh, and 419.56 ac (169.79 ha) of urban/other developed lands. This 

alignment alternative could have indirect impacts on 8,341.09 ac (3,375.53 ha) of agricultural lands, 

3,665.27 ac (1,483.29 ha) of grasslands, 2.32 ac (0.94 ha) of oak and foothill pine woodlands, 50.81 

ac (20.56 ha) of open waters, 9.79 ac (3.96 ha) of permanent freshwater wetlands, 34.32 ac 

(13.89 ha) of riparian habitats, 10.32 ac (4.18 ha) of seasonal wetlands, 14,568.51 ac (5,895.69 ha) 

of urban/other developed lands, and 0.15 ac (0.06 ha) of valley oak woodland. 

Sensitive Vegetation Communities 

The sensitive vegetation communities in this alignment alternative are riparian, permanent freshwater 

marsh, permanent freshwater wetlands, oak woodlands, and seasonal wetlands. 

Special-Status Plants 

The UPRR N/S alignment alternative could adversely affect the habitat of 22 special-status plant 

species (Table 3.15-1). Of the 22 species identified, 14 would the same as for the BNSF-UPRR 

alignment alternative. 

Special-Status Wildlife 

The UPRR N/S alignment alternative could adversely affect the habitat of 21 special-status wildlife 

species, including species of aquatic invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, shorebirds, and small 

mammals (Table 3.15-1). This alignment alternative also has the potential to impact 

marine/anadromous species. 

Wildlife Movement Corridors 

The UPRR N/S alignment alternative would not disrupt any crucial wildlife movement corridors. 

Water Resources/Wetlands 

This alignment alternative has the potential to directly impact approximately 7,160 ft (2,182 m) of 

potential nonwetland jurisdictional waters and approximately 3.0 ac (1.21 ha) of wetlands. Similar to 

the BNSF-UPRR alignment alternative, this alignment alternative crosses the Stanislaus River, San 

Joaquin River, Tuolumne River, Merced River, Chowchilla River, and several other streams, canals, 

and water bodies. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.15 Biological Resources and Wetlands 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.15-62

Conservation Plans 

The UPRR N/S alignment alternative would not adversely impact areas identified in conservation 

plans. 

BNSF Castle Alignment Alternative 

The BNSF Castle alignment alternative could have direct impacts on 254.46 ac (102.98 ha) of 

agricultural lands, 69.67 ac (28.19 ha) of grasslands, 0.39 ac (0.16 ha) of montane hardwood, 4.71 

ac (1.91 ha) of oak woodland/foothill pine, 1.93 ac (0.78 ha) of open waters, 0.21 ac (0.08 ha) of 

permanent freshwater marsh, 0.83 ac (0.34 ha) of riparian habitat, 0.20 ac (0.08 ha) of seasonal 

wetlands, 1.13 ac (0.46 ha) of shrub lands, and 220.27 ac (89.14 ha) of urban/other developed 

lands. This alignment alternative could have indirect impacts on 16,963.29 ac (6,864.83 ha) of 

agricultural lands, 4,422.35 ac (1,789.67 ha) of grasslands, 93.65 ac (37.90 ha) of montane 

hardwood, 203.77 ac (82.46 ha) of oak and foothill pine woodlands, 91.85 ac (37.17 ha) of open 

waters, 14.51 ac (5.87 ha) of permanent freshwater wetlands, 57.76 ac (23.37 ha) of riparian 

habitats, 24.51 ac (9.92 ha) of seasonal wetlands, 53.76 ac (21.76 ha) of shrub land, and 7,700.82 

ac (3,116.42 ha) of urban/other developed lands. 

Sensitive Vegetation Communities 

The sensitive vegetation communities in this alignment alternative are riparian, permanent freshwater 

marsh, permanent freshwater wetlands, oak woodlands, and seasonal wetlands. 

Special-Status Plants 

The BNSF Castle alignment alternative could adversely affect the habitat of 19 special-status plant 

species (Table 3.15-1). Of the 19 species identified, 18 would be the same as for the BNSF-UPRR 

alignment alternative. 

Special-Status Wildlife 

The BNSF Castle alignment alternative could adversely affect the habitat of the same 22 specialstatus wildlife species as the BNSF-UPRR and BNSF alignment alternatives. This alignment 

alternative also has the potential to impact marine/anadromous species. 

Wildlife Movement Corridors 

The BNSF Castle alignment alternative would bisect an east-west linkage corridor between the 

natural lands of the Sacramento Valley (GEA and associated wildlife refuges) and the natural lands 

along the eastern side of the San Joaquin Valley. 

Water Resources/Wetlands 

This alignment alternative has the potential to directly impact approximately 9,095 ft (2,772 m) of 

potential nonwetland jurisdictional waters and approximately 3.1 ac (1.25 ha) of wetlands. Similar to 

the BNSF-UPRR alignment alternative, this alignment alternative crosses the Stanislaus River, San 

Joaquin River, Tuolumne River, Merced River, Chowchilla River, and several other streams, canals, 

and water bodies. 

Conservation Plans 

The BNSF Castle alignment alternative would not adversely impact areas identified in conservation 

plans. 

UPRR-BNSF Castle Alignment Alternative 

The UPRR-BNSF Castle alignment alternative could have direct impacts on 162.30 ac (65.68 ha) of 

agricultural lands, 50.85 ac (20.58 ha) of grasslands, 0.39 ac (0.16 ha) of montane hardwood, 4.71 

ac (1.91 ha) of oak woodland/foothill pine, 0.53 ac (0.21 ha) of open waters, 0.09 ac (0.04 ha) of 

permanent freshwater marsh, 0.24 ac (0.1 ha) of riparian habitat, 1.13 ac (0.46 ha) of shrub lands, 

and 338.99 ac (137.18 ha) of urban/other developed lands. This alignment alternative could have 

indirect impacts on 11,468.80 ac (4,641.28 ha) of agricultural lands, 3,934.37 ac (1,592.19 ha) of 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.15 Biological Resources and Wetlands 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.15-63

grasslands, 93.65 ac (40.33 ha) of montane hardwood, 206.09 ac (83.40 ha) of oak and foothill pine 

woodlands, 48.52 ac (19.64 ha) of open waters, 8.21 ac (3.32 ha) of permanent freshwater 

wetlands, 28.32 ac (11.46 ha) of riparian habitats, 8.05 ac (3.26 ha) of seasonal wetlands, 53.76 ac 

(21.76 ha) of shrub lands, 12,879.80 ac (5,212.29 ha) of urban/other developed lands, and 0.15 ac 

(0.06 ha) of valley oak woodland. 

Sensitive Vegetation Communities 

The sensitive vegetation communities in this alignment alternative are riparian, permanent freshwater 

marsh, permanent freshwater wetlands, oak woodlands, and seasonal wetlands. 

Special-Status Plants 

The UPRR-BNSF Castle alignment alternative could adversely affect the habitat of 22 special-status 

plant species (Table 3.15-1). Of the 22 species identified, 16 would the same as for the BNSF-UPRR 

alignment alternative. 

Special-Status Wildlife 

The UPRR-BNSF Castle alignment alternative could adversely affect the habitat of the same 22 

special-status wildlife species as the BNSF-UPRR, BNSF, BNSF Castle, and UPRR-BNSF alignment 

alternatives. This alignment alternative also has the potential to impact marine/anadromous species. 

Wildlife Movement Corridors 

Impacts on wildlife movement corridors would be the same as for the BNSF Castle alignment 

alternative. 

Water Resources/Wetlands 

This alignment alternative has the potential to directly impact approximately 7,790 ft (2,374 m) of 

potential nonwetland jurisdictional waters and approximately 2.4 ac (0.97 ha) of wetlands. Similar to 

the BNSF-UPRR alignment alternative, this alignment alternative crosses the Stanislaus River, San 

Joaquin River, Tuolumne River, Merced River, Chowchilla River, and several other streams, canals, 

and water bodies. 

Conservation Plans 

The UPRR-BNSF Castle alignment alternative would not adversely impact areas identified in 

conservation plans. 

UPRR-BNSF Alignment Alternative 

The UPRR-BNSF alignment alternative could have direct impacts on 98.74 ac (39.96 ha) of 

agricultural lands, 50.45 ac (20.42 ha) of grasslands, 0.61 ac (0.25 ha) of open waters, 0.01 ac 

(0.004 ha) of permanent freshwater marsh, 0.09 ac (0.04 ha) of riparian habitat, and 381.22 ac 

(154.27 ha) of urban/other developed lands. This alignment alternative could have indirect impacts 

on 9,621.45 ac (3,893.68 ha) of agricultural lands, 3,865.59 ac (1,564.36 ha) of grasslands, 2.32 ac 

(0.94 ha) of oak and foothill pine woodlands, 71.09 ac (28.77 ha) of open waters, 11.58 ac (4.69 ha) 

of permanent freshwater wetlands, 40.32 ac (16.32 ha) of riparian habitats, 10.66 ac (4.31 ha) of 

seasonal wetlands, 13,532.90 ac (5,476.59 ha) of urban/other developed lands, and 0.15 ac 

(0.06 ha) of valley oak woodland. 

Sensitive Vegetation Communities 

The sensitive vegetation communities in this alignment alternative are riparian, permanent freshwater 

marsh, permanent freshwater wetlands, oak woodlands, and seasonal wetlands. 

Special-Status Plants 

The UPRR-BNSF alignment alternative could adversely affect the habitat of 25 special-status plant 

species (Table 3.15-1). Of the 25 species identified, 19 would the same as for the BNSF-UPRR 

alignment alternative. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.15 Biological Resources and Wetlands 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.15-64

Special-Status Wildlife 

The UPRR-BNSF alignment alternative could adversely affect the habitat of the same 22 specialstatus wildlife species as the BNSF-UPRR, BNSF, and BNSF Castle alignment alternatives. This 

alignment alternative also has the potential to impact marine/anadromous species. 

Wildlife Movement Corridors 

Impacts on wildlife movement corridors would be the same as for the BNSF Castle alignment 

alternative. 

Water Resources/Wetlands 

This alignment alternative has the potential to directly impact approximately 8,835 ft (2,693 m) of 

potential nonwetland jurisdictional waters and approximately 3.0 ac (1.21 ha) of wetlands. Similar to 

the BNSF-UPRR alignment alternative, this alignment alternative crosses the Stanislaus River, San 

Joaquin River, Tuolumne River, Merced River, Chowchilla River, and several other streams, canals, 

and water bodies. 

Conservation Plans 

The UPRR-BNSF alignment alternative would not adversely impact areas identified in conservation 

plans. 

Central Valley Corridor Stations 

• Modesto Downtown Station: This station location option could have direct impacts on 4.7 ac 

(1.9 ha) of urban/other developed lands and indirect impacts on 147 ac (59.49 ha) of 

urban/other developed lands. This station location option could impact one special-status wildlife 

species. Impacts on special-status plant species, waters, wetlands, and marine/anadromous 

species are not anticipated with this station location option. 

• Amtrak Briggsmore Station: This station location option could have direct impacts on 1.7 ac 

(0.69 ha) of agricultural lands, 4 ac (1.62 ha) of grasslands, and 4.2 ac (1.7 ha) of urban/other 

developed lands. This station location option could have indirect impacts on 41 ac (16.59 ha) of 

agricultural lands, 81 ac (32.78 ha) of grasslands, and 115 ac (46.54 ha) of urban/other 

developed lands. Impacts on special-status plant and wildlife species, waters, wetlands, and 

marine/anadromous species are not anticipated with this station location option. 

• Merced (Downtown) Station: This station location option could have direct impacts on 8.4 ac 

(3.4 ha) of urban/other developed lands and indirect impacts on 143 ac (57.87 ha) of 

urban/other developed lands. This station could impact one special-status wildlife species. 

Impacts on special-status plant species, waters, wetlands, and marine/anadromous species are 

not anticipated with this station location option. 

• Castle AFB Station: This station location option could have direct impacts on 8.4 ac (3.4 ha) of 

agricultural lands, 1 ac (0.4 ha) of grasslands, and 3.3 ac (1.34 ha) of urban/other developed 

lands. This station location option could have indirect impacts on 150 ac (60.70 ha) of 

agricultural lands, 22 ac (8.9 ha) of grasslands, and 88 ac (35.61 ha) of urban/other developed 

lands. This station location option could impact 315 linear ft (96 m) of waters. Impacts on 

special-status plant and wildlife species, wetlands, and marine/anadromous species are not 

anticipated with this station location option. 

Summary of Central Valley Corridor Impacts 

Sensitive Vegetation Communities 

Each of the alignment alternatives in this corridor would have similar sensitive vegetation 

communities, including riparian, permanent freshwater marsh, permanent freshwater wetlands, and 

seasonal wetlands. In addition, all of the alignment alternatives would also have oak woodlands, 

except for the BNSF-UPRR alignment alternative. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.15 Biological Resources and Wetlands 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.15-65

Special-Status Plants 

The UPRR-BNSF alignment alternative would have the potential to impact the greatest number of 

special-status plants. The BNSF Castle alignment alternative would have the potential to impact the 

least number of special-status plants. 

Special-Status Wildlife 

The BNSF, BNSF-UPRR, BNSF Castle, UPRR-BNSF Castle, and UPRR-BNSF alignment alternatives all 

have the potential to impact the same special-status wildlife species, including San Joaquin kit fox. 

The UPRR N/S alignment alternative is the only alignment that does not have the potential to impact 

the San Joaquin kit fox. 

Wildlife Corridor 

All of the alignment alternatives in this corridor would bisect a major linkage corridor between the 

natural lands of the Sacramento Valley (GEA and associated wildlife refuges) and the natural lands 

along the eastern side of the San Joaquin Valley. 

Water Resources 

This corridor has the potential to directly impact between approximately 7,160 ft (2,182 m) and 

10,530 ft (3,210 m) of potential nonwetland jurisdictional waters and between approximately 2.4 ac 

(0.97 ha) and 3.8 ac (1.54 ha) of wetlands. 

Conservation Plans 

None of the alignment alternatives in this corridor is anticipated to adversely impact areas identified 

in conservation plans. 

3.15.4 Role of Design Practices in Avoiding and Minimizing Effects 

The Authority is committed to pursuing agreements with existing owners/rail operators to place the HST 

alignment within existing rail rights-of-way, which would avoid or minimize potential impacts on biological 

resources. A large percentage of the HST system would be either within or adjacent to a major existing 

transportation corridor (existing railroad or highway right-of-way). These existing transportation 

corridors, along which the HST system would be placed, have already impacted biological resources, so 

additional impacts would be minimized. Moreover, portions of the HST system would be on aerial 

structures or in tunnels. A smaller portion of the HST system would be in new at-grade rail corridors (not 

on aerial structure or in tunnel) and not within or adjacent to an existing transportation right-of way). It 

is in these areas where there would be the greatest potential to impact biological resources. To lessen 

the effects on biological resources at these locations, culverts would be constructed at regular intervals to 

allow for the movement of wildlife species, such as San Joaquin kit fox, mountain lion, and deer. The 

alignment alternatives located in the mountain passes would include tunnels, which would avoid or 

substantially reduce surface impacts on sensitive biological resources, except at the tunnel portal areas. 

The HST system would be placed on bridges or elevated railways across water bodies or sensitive natural 

communities. The new bridges would replace older bridges whenever possible, and the new bridges 

would use materials and designs to minimize the number of piles/columns in the water. Additionally, the 

HST right-of-way width could also be reduced in constrained areas to minimize impacts on biological 

resources. 

3.15.5 Mitigation Strategies and CEQA Significance Conclusions 

Constructing the proposed HST has many environmental advantages over constructing a roadway in the 

same corridor, including the following. 

• The track-bed is constructed so that water drains away, which maintains a dry environment that 

prevents unwanted vegetation from establishing. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.15 Biological Resources and Wetlands 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.15-66

• The track-bed has a porous, stable base that prevents runoff from concentrating, which keeps 

erosion to a minimum and filters out particulates and chemical pollutants. 

• A service road, or other narrow access strip running alongside the track-bed, prevents spoils from 

shifting beyond the toe of the track-bed slope. 

• Drainage ditches parallel to the track-bed prevent uncontrolled erosion, act as sediment traps, 

filter railway runoff, and insulate adjoining lands from uncontrolled channel flow. 

• HST construction usually has a significantly smaller footprint than road construction. 

• HST corridors are narrower than a road, so animals are more willing to cross under them. 

• It is more feasible to elevate a HST system on a pile-supported structure than to elevate a road. 

However, based on the analysis above, and considering the design practices described in Section 3.15.4, 

each of the HST Alignment Alternatives would have significant impacts on biological resources. Direct 

and indirect impacts on biological resources, including wetlands and other sensitive natural communities 

and special-status plant and wildlife species would be expected with each alignment alternative and at 

some of the station location options, although the extent of the impacts differs, as described in the text 

and Table 3.15-1. 

The HST Alignment Alternatives could also pose a significant barrier to the movement of wildlife in areas 

where it severs wildlife movement corridors, such as those in the East Bay to Central Valley and the San 

Jose to Central Valley corridors. 

The HST Alignment Alternatives could also conflict with conservation and restoration plans and special 

management areas. 

At this programmatic level of analysis, it is not possible to know precisely the location, extent, and 

particular characteristics of biological resources that would be affected or the precise impacts on those 

resources. The impacts are therefore considered significant for each alignment alternative and all but 12 

of the station location options. Mitigation strategies, as well as the design practices discussed above, 

would be implemented to reduce the impacts. 

Mitigation of potentially major impacts on biological resources would be based first on avoidance. The 

strategy that would be followed early in the conceptual design stage of the project would be to avoid 

sensitive biological resources wherever feasible. Where potential impacts on biological resources are 

unavoidable, the strategy would focus on reducing the potential impact. 

Resource agencies have expressed interest in helping to develop and participate in a mitigation planning 

and monitoring program to determine impacts and mitigation effectiveness for sensitive species in the 

lagoon areas. This approach could include site-specific baseline conditions, monitoring mitigation 

effectiveness as various HST elements are constructed, and adjusting mitigation measures as needed 

based on effectiveness and compatibility with lagoon restoration programs. 

Because specific biological resource impacts cannot be predicted with certainty at this program level of 

analysis, specific mitigation measures also cannot be developed at this time. However, mitigation 

strategies are described below from which specific mitigation measures can be developed once the extent 

of direct and indirect biological resource impacts has been determined at the project level. 

The following mitigation strategies would be applied at the project level for potential impacts on biological 

resources, when such strategies where appropriate and feasible, as determined by project-level analysis. 

• Plant Communities: Mitigation strategies for affected plant communities include construction 

monitoring, onsite and/or offsite revegetation/restoration, and purchase of credits from an 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.15 Biological Resources and Wetlands 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.15-67

existing mitigation bank. Mitigation ratios will vary, depending on the quality of the plant 

community affected and whether it provides habitat for sensitive plant or wildlife species. 

Regulatory agencies will be consulted to determine appropriate mitigation ratios. Onsite 

mitigation will be preferred to offsite mitigation whenever possible. Offsite mitigation will be 

located in the same watershed or in proximity to the impact area, where feasible. 

• Biological Resources Management Plans: Biological Resources Management Plans (BRMP) 

specify the design and implementation of biological resources mitigation measures, including 

habitat replacement and revegetation, protection during construction, performance (growth) 

standards, maintenance criteria, and monitoring requirements. The USFWS, CDFG, and USACE 

will review draft BRMPs. 

The primary goal of a BRMP is to ensure the long-term perpetuation of the existing diversity of 

habitats in the project area and adjacent urban interface zones. BRMPs will contain the following 

information. 

a. Specific measures for the protection of sensitive amphibian, mammal, bird, and plant species 

during construction. 

b. Identification and quantification of habitats to be removed, along with the locations where 

these habitats are to be restored or relocated. 

c. Procedures for vegetation analyses of adjacent protected habitats to approximate their 

relative composition, site preparation (clearing, grading, weed eradication, soil amendment, 

topsoil storage), irrigation, planting (container plantings, seeding), and maintenance (weed 

control, irrigation system checks, replanting). This information will be used to determine the 

requirements of the revegetation areas. 

d. Sources of plant materials and methods of propagation. 

e. Specific parameters for the determination of the amount of replacement habitat for 

temporary disturbance areas. 

f. Specification of parameters for maintenance and monitoring of re-established habitats, 

including weed control measures, frequency of field checks, and monitoring reports for 

temporary disturbance areas. 

g. Specification of performance standards for growth of re-established plant communities and 

cut-and-fill slopes. 

h. Remedial measures to be taken if performance standards are not met. 

i. Methodologies and requirements for monitoring of the restoration/replacement efforts. 

j. Measures to preserve topsoil and control erosion control. 

k. Design of protective fencing around environmentally sensitive areas (ESAs) and the 

construction staging areas. 

l. Specification of location and quantities of gallinaceous guzzlers (catch basin/artificial watering 

structures, if needed); specification of monitoring of water levels in guzzlers. 

m. Location of trees to be protected as wildlife habitat (roosting sites) and locations for planting 

of replacement trees. 

n. Specification of the purpose, type, frequency, and extent of chemical use for insect and 

disease control operations as part of vegetative maintenance within sensitive habitat areas. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.15 Biological Resources and Wetlands 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.15-68

o. Specific construction monitoring programs for sensitive species. 

p. Specific measures for the protection of sensitive habitats to be preserved. These measures 

may include (i.e., are not limited to) erosion and siltation control measures, protective 

fencing guidelines, dust control measures, grading techniques, construction area limits, and 

biological monitoring requirements. 

q. Provisions for biological monitoring during construction activities to ensure compliance and 

success of protective measures. The monitoring procedures would (1) identify specific 

locations of wildlife habitat and sensitive species to be monitored, (2) identify the frequency 

of monitoring and the monitoring methodology (for each habitat and sensitive species to be 

monitored), (3) list required qualifications of biological monitor(s), and (4) identify reporting 

requirements. 

• Sensitive Plant Species: Mitigation strategies for sensitive plant communities include 

preconstruction focused surveys, construction monitoring, relocation of plants, seed collection, 

plant propagation, outplanting to a suitable mitigation site, and participation in an existing HCP. 

Prior to construction, focused surveys will be conducted for sensitive plant species identified as 

occurring in the study area. Locations of sensitive plant species observed will be mapped on 

construction drawings. Research must be conducted on appropriate methods to use on a 

species-by-species basis. Some plant species may require transplantation, whereas others may 

germinate from seed, and still others may need to be propagated in a greenhouse prior to 

planting on an appropriate mitigation site. Also, see reference to BRMP, above. 

• Weed Prevention: Specific mitigation measures will be developed to minimize or avoid the 

spread of weeds during construction and operation. Preventive measures during construction 

include identification of areas with existing weed problems and measures to control traffic 

moving out of those areas (e.g., cleaning construction vehicles, limiting movement of fill). 

Mitigation for operational impacts would also be developed. 

• Sensitive Wildlife Species: Mitigation strategies for sensitive wildlife species include 

preconstruction focused surveys, construction monitoring, restoration of suitable breeding and 

foraging habitat, purchase of credits from an existing mitigation bank, and participation in an 

existing HCP. Prior to construction, focused surveys will be conducted for sensitive wildlife 

species identified as occurring in the study area. Locations of sensitive wildlife species observed 

will be mapped on construction drawings. Construction could be phased around the breeding 

season for sensitive wildlife species. Also, see reference to BRMP, above. 

• Wildlife Movement/Migration Corridors: Wildlife crossings would be of a design, shape, 

and size to be sufficiently attractive to encourage wildlife use. Overcrossings and undercrossings 

for wildlife would be appropriately vegetated to afford cover and other species requirements. 

Functional corridors would be established to provide connectivity to protected land zoned for uses 

that provide wildlife permeability. The following process would be used in design of corridors: 

− Identify the habitat areas the corridor is designed to connect. 

− Select several species of interest from the species present in these areas. 

− Evaluate the relevant needs of each selected species. 

− For each potential corridor, evaluate how the area will accommodate movement by each 

selected species. 

− Draw the corridors on a map. 

− Design a monitoring program. 

• Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands: The amount of mitigation required will be assessed on 

an acreage basis, with ratios depending on the nature and condition of the jurisdictional areas 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.15 Biological Resources and Wetlands 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.15-69

located in the impact areas. When appropriate, onsite mitigation will be preferred. Offsite 

mitigation will be located in the same watershed or as close to the area of impact as possible. 

Mitigation options for unavoidable impacts on state and federal jurisdictional waters will include 

onsite or offsite restoration, creation, or enhancement; mitigation banking; or in-lieu fee 

payments, as described below. 

− Restoration—To return degraded habitat to a preexisting condition. 

− Creation—To convert a persistent nonwetland habitat into wetland (or other aquatic) habitat. 

The created habitat may be self-sustaining or dependent on artificial irrigation. 

− Enhancement—To increase one or more functions through activities, such as planting or 

eradicating nonnative vegetation. 

− Passive Revegetation—To allow a disturbed area to naturally revegetate without plantings. 

− Mitigation banking—To purchase units of wetland or waters habitat that have been restored 

or enhanced in a larger managed conservation area. The units are typically known as credits

and are usually sold on an acreage basis. 

− In-Lieu Fee Program—A monetary payment made to an agency-approved entity that provides 

habitat conservation or restoration. For instance, the Nature Conservancy may receive in-lieu 

fee payments for impacts in all watersheds. 

Current federal and state policy emphasizes a "no net loss" of wetlands habitats policy, which is 

usually achieved through restoration of areas subject to temporary impacts or creation of 

wetlands to offset permanent impacts. However, the January 27, 2003, Special Public Notice for 

Mitigation and Monitoring Guidelines states that the USACE favors the use of approved mitigation 

banks or in-lieu fee programs in cases where they result in more regional or watershed benefit 

than onsite compensatory mitigation. Approved mitigation and in-lieu fee programs would 

include measures that ensure the no net loss of wetlands policy is met. 

Site-specific impacts would need to be assessed and evaluated in a project-level environmental review, 

and specific mitigation measures for impacts on biological resources would be considered, such as 

preparing a wetland delineation; compensating for impacts on wetlands; conducting protocol-level 

surveys for listed species, surveys for nesting birds, and species-specific surveys; and compensating for 

temporary and permanent impacts on listed species. Site-specific mitigation measures will be developed 

through consultation with state and federally resource agencies. During project-level review, where the 

agencies determine that mitigation is required to address site-specific impacts from the HST system, one 

strategy may be to purchase easements to preserve habitat for sensitive biological resources. The 

Authority will coordinate with private land preservation trusts, local programs, and mitigation banks to 

help identify needs for habitat protection. The Authority will also coordinate with resource agencies to 

identify additional measures to limit impacts on, or otherwise protect, biological resources. 

The feasibility of any mitigation strategy would have to be evaluated at the project-specific level and 

would depend on such factors as an assessment of the habitat impacted, the number of voluntary 

participants in local or regional programs, and the cost of acquiring easements. Possible mitigation 

strategies for severance of wildlife movement corridors could include alternative access, HST realignment, 

or overcrossings at select locations. 

The above mitigation strategies are expected to substantially lessen or avoid impacts on biological 

resources in many circumstances. Sufficient information is not available at this programmatic level, 

however, to conclude with certainty that the above mitigation strategies will reduce impacts on biological 

resources to a less-than-significant level in all circumstances. This document, therefore, concludes that 

impacts on biological resources would remain significant, even with the application of mitigation 

strategies. Additional environmental assessment will allow a more precise evaluation in the second-tier 

project-level analysis. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.15 Biological Resources and Wetlands 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.15-70

As indicated earlier, the above analysis does not provide a parcel-specific potential impact analysis for 

impacts on biological resources. Subsequent project-level analysis would address local issues once the 

potential alignment alternatives are defined in more detail. Subsequent project-level environmental 

documentation would include more detailed information on existing habitat conditions, the 

presence/absence of special-status plant and wildlife species, the presence of sensitive natural 

communities, and the acreage of wetlands affected. 

In order to address the impacts of the project on the unique assemblage of migratory birds, sensitive 

species, wetlands and habitat values within the approximately 240,000 ac (97,125 ha) designated as the 

GEA, this Final EIR/EIS indicates that certain measures are necessary to mitigate impacts identified at the 

program-level and the Authority would commit to the measures listed below in its decision documents. 

These measures have also been developed to address the following goals: 

• Satisfy the future requirements of the resource agencies (e.g., USFWS, CDFG, and USACE) at the 

project level to offset impacts to wetlands, sensitive plant and animal species, and other 

biological resources in and around the GEA; 

• Anticipate future pressures for growth in and around the GEA and provide a mechanism to 

prevent further impacts by forestalling that growth and preserving the habitat and scenic open 

space values in and around the GEA; and 

• Provide assurance that project-level impacts on the GEA will be evaluated at the appropriate level 

of detail in the project-level EIR/EIS. 

The following specific measures are necessary to mitigate program level impacts: 

 a. An appropriate field survey of biological resources within areas of the GEA directly affected by 

proposed HST tracks or facilities, including San Joaquin kit fox, giant garter snake and important 

waterfowl nesting and breeding habitat to be included in the project-level environmental analysis. 

b. Project-level evaluation of the potential impacts to biological resources in the GEA from HST 

construction, operation and maintenance, including, but not limited to, ecosystem fragmentation 

impacts, impacts to wildlife movement corridors, impacts to waterfowl flight patterns, noise 

impacts, startle and vibration impacts, collision impacts, electrocution impacts, glare impacts, 

water quality and water flow impacts, impacts on waterfowl nesting and breeding, impacts on 

migratory habits, impacts from construction traffic, impacts of equipment storage and laydown 

areas, impacts from blasting and pile-driving, and impacts from temporary disruption of water 

supply deliveries. 

c. Minimize the footprint of necessary HST facilities to the extent feasible in the HST alignment 

crossing the GEA. 

d. In consultation with the CDFG, the USFWS, and the Grassland Water District, an evaluation in the 

project-level environmental analysis of the timing of construction activities within the GEA and 

measures to minimize disturbance during nesting and flooding seasons. 

e. In consultation with the CDFG, the USFWS, and the Grassland Water District, an evaluation in the 

project level environmental analysis of non-glare and directed lighting and appropriate measures 

to avoid disturbance impacts to sensitive species in areas of the GEA directly affected by 

proposed HST facilities. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.15 Biological Resources and Wetlands 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.15-71

f. Acquisition from willing sellers by the Authority, or by other entities designated and supported by 

the Authority, of agricultural, conservation and/or open space easements encompassing at least 

10,000 ac (4,047 ha) and generally located along or in the vicinity of the HST alignment and 

within or adjacent to the designated GEA. This measure would reduce impacts to and support 

conservation of wetlands and sensitive ecological areas, as well as limit urban encroachment in 

the vicinity of the HST through the GEA. The focus for these easements would be in areas 

undergoing development pressures, such as the areas around Los Banos and Volta, and/or areas 

that would be most appropriate for ecological conservation or restoration. The eventual locations 

and total acreage for these easements would be determined in conjunction with the project-level 

environmental analysis and decisions addressing the Gilroy to Merced portion of the HST system 

and in consultation with the CDFG, the USFWS, and the Grassland Water District. 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.16-1

3.16 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources (Public Parks and Recreation) 

Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources analyzed in this Program EIR/EIS include publicly owned parklands, 

recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites that are covered by Section 4(f) of the 

DOT Act of 1966 and Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965. This section 

describes the existing Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources within the Bay Area to Central Valley region and 

identifies the potential uses of and potential impacts on Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources for each 

alignment alternative1

. In this program-level environmental document, the potential uses of Section 4(f) 

and 6(f) resources are identified and compared for the alignment alternatives being considered, while 

detailed evaluation is deferred to future project-level environmental analyses, when site-specific 

information would be available for project alignment alternatives and station location options. See 

Section 3.12 also for analysis of historic and archaeological resources. See Chapter 7 for information on 

Network Alternatives. 

3.16.1 Regulatory Requirements and Methods of Evaluation 

A. REGULATORY PROVISIONS 

Section 4(f)

Federal law 49 USC § 303, formerly Section 4(f) of DOT Act of 1966 (49 USC § 303), states the 

following: 

(a) It is the policy of the United States government that special effort should be made 

to preserve the natural beauty of the countryside and public park and recreation 

lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites. 

(b) The Secretary of Transportation shall cooperate and consult with the Secretaries of 

the Interior, Housing and Urban Development, and Agriculture, and with the 

States, in developing transportation plans and programs that include measures to 

maintain or enhance the natural beauty of lands crossed by transportation 

activities or facilities. 

(c) The Secretary may approve a transportation program or project (other than any 

project for a park road or parkway under Section 204 of Title 23) requiring the use 

of publicly owned land of a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl 

refuge of national, State, or local significance (as determined by the Federal, State, 

or local officials having jurisdiction over the park, area, refuge, or site) only if-- 

(1) there is no prudent and feasible alternative to using that land; and 

(2) the program or project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the 

park, recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site resulting 

from the use. 

Implementing regulations recently issued by the FHWA and FTA describe the appropriate 

documentation of Section 4(f) in a programmatic (Tier I) EIS: “When the first-tier, broad-scale EIS is 

prepared, the detailed information necessary to complete the Section 4(f) approval may not be 

available at that stage in the development of the action. In such cases, the documentation should 

address the potential impacts that a proposed action will have on Section 4(f) property and whether 

those impacts could have a bearing on the decision to be made.” [23 CFR 774.7(e)(1)] 

 

1

 See Section 3.0, Introduction, for an explanation of how this section fits together with the HST Network Alternatives presented in 

Chapter 7, as well as for an overview of the information presented in the other chapters. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.16 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.16-2

Similarly, CEQA requires agencies to consider the impacts of projects on parks and recreational 

resources and California law requires a state agency that proposes a project which may result in 

adverse effects on historical resources listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP or the CRHR to consult 

with the State Historic Preservation Office and to identify feasible and prudent measures that would 

eliminate or mitigate the adverse effects (California Public Resources Code §§ 5024 and 5024.5; 

CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5, and Appendix G.) 

Section 6(f)

State and local governments often obtain grants through the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act 

to acquire or make improvements to parks and recreation areas (16 U.S.C. §§ 460-4 through 460-11, 

September 3, 1964, as amended 1965, 1968, 1970, 1972–1974, 1976–1981, 1983, 1986, 1987, 

1990, 1991, 1993–1996). Section 6(f) of the act prohibits the conversion of property acquired or 

developed with these grants to a nonrecreational purpose without the approval of the U.S. 

Department of the Interior’s (DOI’s) National Park Service. Section 6(f) directs DOI to ensure that 

replacement lands of equal value (monetary), location, and usefulness are provided as conditions to 

such conversions. Consequently, where such conversions of Section 6(f) lands are proposed for 

transportation projects, replacement lands must be provided. 

California statutes similarly require replacement lands. The California Public Park Preservation Act of 

1971 (California Public Resources Code § 5400 et seq.) provides that a public agency that acquires 

public parkland for nonpark use must either pay compensation that is sufficient to acquire 

substantially equivalent substitute parkland or provide substitute parkland of comparable 

characteristics. 

B. METHOD OF EVALUATION OF IMPACTS 

This program-level evaluation of potential impacts on Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources focuses on 

identifying existing historical, cultural, parkland, and wildlife resources, and potential uses of and 

impacts on these resources under the No Project and HST alternatives. The goal at this tier of 

environmental analysis is to identify Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources on or close to the proposed HST 

Alignment Alternatives and to assess the relative differences in potential impacts of the alignment 

alternatives on these resources. At this stage of environmental review, it is not practical to study or 

measure the severity of each potential impact identified. No fieldwork was conducted as part of this 

analysis, and no Section 4(f) determination is practical or required for this Program EIR/EIS. At the 

conclusion of this program environmental process, corridor alignments and station locations may be 

selected for further design and environmental review; however, no construction and therefore no 

uses of Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources will be approved. In subsequent project-level analysis, 

Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources, potential uses and impacts, and appropriate avoidance and mitigation 

measures would be evaluated in detail and determinations made. 

Various sources were consulted to identify potential resources in each corridor, including available 

databases, studies, and other documents. These documents are listed in the references chapter of 

this document. To identify and quantify the potential impacts by resource type, the improvements 

included under each alignment alternative (HST Alignment Alternatives and HST station location 

options) were overlaid on available databases and maps. Two types of potential impacts on Section 

4(f) and 6(f) resources were identified: direct and proximity. 

• Direct Impact: A physical feature of a proposed improvement would directly intersect with a 

portion or all of the resource and require the use of property from that resource. 

• Proximity Impact: A physical feature of a proposed improvement has the potential to impact the 

resource as a result of its proximity to the resource. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.16 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.16-3

Potential impacts were assigned a qualitative ranking of high, medium, or low based on the proximity 

of the resource to the centerline of the proposed improvement. The rankings are summarized in 

Table 3.16-1. 

Table 3.16-1 

Rankings for Potential Direct and Proximity Impacts 

on Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources 

Ranking 

Distance of Resource from 

Alignment Centerline Potential Impact 

High 0 to 150 ft (0 to 46 m) Direct 

Medium 150 to 450 ft (46 to 137 m) Proximity 

Low 450 to 900 ft (137 to 274 m) Proximity 

Potential uses of historical sites under Section 4(f) and 6(f) were assigned a qualitative ranking of 

high, medium, or low. This is based on the total number of sites within the APE of each alignment 

alternative being divided by the total length of the alignment alternative being evaluated to arrive at 

an average number of sites (or proportion of sites) per mile. The APE is defined in Section 3.12, 

“Cultural Resources and Paleontological Resources.” 

That average was then translated to the qualitative rankings of high, medium, or low impacts as 

follows: 

• Low: 0.00-0.25 sites per mile. 

• Medium: 0.26-0.75 sites per mile. 

• High: More than 0.76 sites per mile. 

3.16.2 Affected Environment 

A. STUDY AREA DEFINED 

The study area for the analysis of Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources encompasses the area within 900 ft 

(274 m) on either side of the centerline of each alignment alternative and within a 900 ft (274 m) 

radius of the stations for each alternative. 

Because the proposed HST system would cross urbanized, developed, and rural areas, a variety of 

Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources could be affected. The proposed HST alignment alternatives were 

developed with the intent of avoiding these resources to the extent feasible. However, there are 

potential locations within the proposed HST system where Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources would not 

be avoided. These are discussed in the environmental consequences section below. 

B. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF SECTION 4(f) AND 6(f) RESOURCES 

Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources refer to publicly owned lands of a park, recreation area, or wildlife 

and waterfowl refuge or to land of a historical site of national, state, or local significance (as 

determined by the federal, state, regional, or local officials having jurisdiction over the park, 

recreation area, refuge, or site). 

Historically, urban and suburban development follows the establishment of transportation corridors 

and facilities. In California in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, most cities formed 

around ports and rail lines, the primary modes for transporting people and goods. After World War 

II, in the early 1950s, highways and the automobile became the dominant mode of transportation, 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.16 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.16-4

bringing urban and suburban development to areas along highways that were formerly farm-tomarket roads connecting rural areas to cities. 

The location and identification of Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources reflect this historic transportation 

corridor and urban development pattern. Today, in the urban areas that developed around the 

railroads at the turn of the century, there is a high concentration of historical resources. In many 

California cities, the railroad station is one of the oldest historical resources in the city. In the 

suburban and rural areas where development followed highways, some open space and natural areas 

have been preserved as public parks. In addition to these passive park2

 areas, new public parks and 

playgrounds have been built as part of residential developments. All of these historical resources and 

public parks are considered potential Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources. Therefore, in urban areas, an 

alternative would be more likely to affect historical and archeological resources, while in suburban, 

wilderness, or remote areas (e.g., mountain crossings), an alternative would be more likely to affect 

public parks and recreation lands and wildlife and waterfowl refuges. 

Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources by Corridor

The most significant Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources in each region (except historical and 

archaeological resources) are identified below. (See Section 3.12, “Cultural Resources and 

Paleontological Resources,” for information on historical and archeological resources.) 

San Francisco to San Jose Corridor 

This corridor extends from the areas on the west side of the San Francisco Bay along the Caltrain rail 

line from the City of San Francisco to the City of San Jose. This corridor contains a wide variety of 

Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources, including the San Bruno Mountain State and County Park and many 

local parks and playgrounds. The historic rail stations in Burlingame, Santa Clara, and San Jose typify 

many of the historical resources that can be found throughout the corridor. 

Oakland to San Jose Corridor 

This corridor extends from the areas on the east side of the San Francisco Bay along I-880 and an 

existing UPRR alignment from the City of Oakland to the City of San Jose. A number of 4(f) and 6(f) 

resources are contained within the corridor, including regional parks and many local parks. The 

historic downtown district in the City of Oakland typifies the historical resources that can be found 

throughout the corridor. 

San Jose to Central Valley Corridor 

The San Jose to Central Valley corridor includes the areas from the City of San Jose south to the City 

of Gilroy and east across the Diablo Range to the Central Valley. Section 4(f) resources within this 

corridor are found to the west along the Pacheco alignment alternative and include many local parks 

within the San Jose and Morgan Hill city limits and historical resources such as the historic rail station 

in the City of Gilroy. The resources include Henry Coe State Park, Great Valley Grasslands State Park, 

Upper Cottonwood Creek Wildlife Area, and the Los Banos Wildlife Area. There are no Section 6(f) 

resources within the study area of this corridor. 

East Bay to Central Valley Corridor 

This corridor includes the areas from the City of Fremont east through Niles Canyon and into the 

cities of Pleasanton, Dublin, and Livermore. East of the City of Livermore, the alignment alternatives 

in this corridor continue through the Altamont Pass and into the Central Valley via the cities of Tracy 

and Manteca. A number of 4(f) and 6(f) resources are contained within the corridor, including 

regional parks and trails (Pleasanton Ridge, Vargas Plateau, and Shadow Cliffs), public golf courses 

(Las Positas and Springtown), and a number of local parks. 

 

2 Passive park refers to a park that is used for picnicking or passive water sports; it also describes zoos and arboretums. An active 

park is a park that includes facilities such as children’s play equipment, playing fields, tennis or basketball courts, etc. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.16 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.16-5

San Francisco Bay Crossings 

These crossing alternatives include the San Francisco Bay crossings between the cities of San 

Francisco and Oakland near the San Francisco/Oakland Bay Bridge and between the cities of East 

Palo Alto and Newark south of the Dumbarton Bridge and into the City of Fremont. Section 4(f) 

resources (there are no Section 6(f) resources within this alignment alternative) are contained within 

the corridor, including one prominent national park (Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife 

Refuge), a regional park (Quarry Lakes Regional Park), and many local parks. 

Central Valley Corridor 

The Central Valley corridor includes the areas of the Central Valley from the City of Stockton south to 

the northern areas of Madera County. There are two alignment alternatives within the Central Valley 

corridor that traverse along the existing UPRR and BNSF rail lines. A number of 4(f) resources are 

contained within the corridor, including two regional parks (Tuolumne River Regional Park and Jacob 

Meyer Regional Park), the Stanislaus County Fairgrounds, and numerous local parks. 

3.16.3 Environmental Consequences 

A. NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE 

The existing conditions are based on transportation infrastructure that was identified as part of the 

alternatives definition process. The No Project Alternative is based on existing conditions and the 

funded and programmed transportation improvements that are projected to be developed and in 

operation by 2030. It is not possible as part of this study to identify or quantify the potential uses 

and impacts expected to occur by 2030 with implementation of the No Project Alternative. Rather, it 

is assumed that the improvements to be developed and implemented under the No Project 

Alternative would undergo typical design and construction practices that would avoid or greatly limit 

potential impacts. Additionally, each improvement associated with the No Project Alternative would 

be subject to a project-level environmental document that would identify potential uses and impacts, 

as well as measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the impacts. Although it is expected that there 

may be additional changes in conditions by 2030, it would speculative to attempt to estimate or 

quantify such changes. Thus, no additional impacts beyond the existing conditions are quantified 

under the No Project Alternative. 

B. HIGH-SPEED TRAIN ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES 

Table 3.16-2 summarizes the number of potential high impacts as identified in Section 3.16.1B on 

Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources by corridor. 

Table 3.16-2 

Number of Potential High Impacts on Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources by Corridor 

Corridor 

Potential High Impacts 

on Section 4(f) 

Resources 

Potential High Impacts 

on Section 6(f) 

Resources 

Total Potential 

High Impacts 

San Francisco to San Jose 6 0 6 

Oakland to San Jose 10–11 2–4 12–15 

San Jose to Central Valley 5–6 0 5–6 

East Bay to Central Valley 4–6 1 5–7 

San Francisco Bay Crossings 0–4 0 0–4 

Central Valley 4–6 0 4–6 

Source: Parsons 2007. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.16 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.16-6

C. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES BY CORRIDOR 

This section outlines the potential impacts of the HST on Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources by alignment 

alternative. Differences in potential impacts between HST alignment alternatives are also discussed. 

Appendix 3.16-A provides summary tables showing a more detailed comparison of the different 

alternatives and their potential impacts on Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources. Table 3.16-3 provides the 

number of resources by corridor and alignment alternative for each rating category (H, M, L). The 

number of historical resources within 900 ft (274 m) of the proposed alignment alternative and its 

sensitivity rating (H, M, L) is also listed in Table 3.16-3. Publically owned lands near the HST 

alignment are shown in Figure 3.16-1. 

Table 3.16-3 

Summary of Potential Impacts on Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources 

Corridor 

Possible Alignments 

Alignment 

Alternative 

Section 4(f) Parks/ 

Recreational 

Resources (H,M,L) 

Section 6(f) Water 

Conservation Fund 

Properties 

Known Historical 

Resources Within 

500 Feet of 

Centerline and 

Overall Ranking of 

Alignment 

Alternative (H,M,L) 

San 

Francisco to 

San Jose: 

Caltrain 

1 of 1 San Francisco 

to Dumbarton 4-H, 8-M, 5-L 0-H, 0-M, 2-L 51 – H 

1 of 1 Dumbarton to 

San Jose 6-H, 4-M, 3-L 0-H, 0-M, 1-L 34 – H 

Station Location Options 

Transbay Transit Center 0-H, 0-M, 0-L 0-H, 0-M, 0-L 0 – H 

4th and King (Caltrain) 0-H, 0-M, 0-L 0-H, 0-M, 0-L 0 – H 

Millbrae/SFO 0-H, 0-M, 0-L 0-H, 0-M, 0-L 1 – H 

Redwood City (Caltrain) 0-H, 0-M, 0-L 0-H, 0-M, 0-L 0 – L 

Palo Alto (Caltrain) 0-H, 0-M, 0-L 0-H, 0-M, 0-L 1 – M 

Oakland to 

San Jose: 

Niles/I-880 

1 of 2 West Oakland 

to Niles 

Junction 

5-H, 9-M, 3-L 1-H, 1-M, 1-L 24 – M-L 

 12th

Street/City 

Center to 

Niles Junction 

6-H, 8-M, 5-L 2-H, 0-M, 2-L 32 – H 

1 of 2 Niles Junction 

to San Jose 

via Trimble 

5-H, 1-M, 2-L 2-H, 0-M, 0-L 31 – H 

Niles Junction 

to San Jose 

via I-880 

5-H, 1-M, 1-L 1-H, 0-M, 0-L 4 – L 

Station Location Options 

West Oakland/7th Street 0-H, 0-M, 0-L 0-H, 0-M, 0-L 0 – L 

12th Street/City Center 0-H, 0-M, 0-L 0-H, 0-M, 0-L 0 – M 

Coliseum/Airport 0-H, 1-M, 0-L 0-H, 0-M, 0-L 0 – L 

Union City (BART) 0-H, 1-M, 0-L 0-H, 0-M, 0-L 0 – L 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.16 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.16-7

Corridor 

Possible Alignments 

Alignment 

Alternative 

Section 4(f) Parks/ 

Recreational 

Resources (H,M,L) 

Section 6(f) Water 

Conservation Fund 

Properties 

Known Historical 

Resources Within 

500 Feet of 

Centerline and 

Overall Ranking of 

Alignment 

Alternative (H,M,L) 

Fremont (Warm Springs) 0-H, 0-M, 0-L 0-H, 0-M, 0-L 0 – L 

San Jose to 

Central 

Valley: 

Pacheco Pass 

1 of 1 Pacheco 3-H, 1-M, 4-L 0-H, 0-M, 1-L 11 – M 

1 of 3 Henry Miller 

(UPRR 

Connection) 

2-H, 0-M, 0-L 0-H, 0-M, 0-L 5 – M 

Henry Miller 

(BNSF 

Connection)

2-H, 0-M, 0-L 0-H, 0-M, 0-L 5 – M 

GEA North 3-H, 0-M, 0-L 0-H, 0-M, 0-L 9 – M 

San Jose (Diridon) 0-H, 0-M, 0-L 0-H, 0-M, 0-L 1 – M 

Morgan Hill (Caltrain) 0-H, 0-M, 0-L 0-H, 0-M, 0-L 0 – L 

Gilroy (Caltrain) 0-H, 0-M, 0-L 0-H, 0-M, 0-L 0 – L 

East Bay to 

Central 

Valley: 

Altamont 

Pass

1 of 4 I-680/ 

580/UPRR 6-H, 3-M, 2-L 1-H, 0-M, 1-L 20 – M 

I-580/ UPRR 4-H, 4-M, 0-L 1-H, 0-M, 0-L 17 – M 

Patterson 

Pass/UPRR 4-H, 5-M, 1-L 1-H, 0-M, 0-L 6 – L 

 UPRR 4-H, 5-M, 1-L 1-H, 0-M, 0-L 6 – L 

1 of 4 Tracy 

Downtown 

(BNSF 

Connection) 

0-H, 2-M, 5-L 0-H, 0-M, 0-L 14 – L 

Tracy ACE 

Station (BNSF 

Connection) 

0-H, 2-M, 0-L 0-H, 0-M, 0-L 15 – L 

Tracy ACE 

Station (UPRR 

Connection) 

0-H, 2-M, 0-L 0-H, 0-M, 0-L 12 – L 

Tracy 

Downtown 

(UPRR 

Connection) 

0-H, 2-M, 5-L 0-H, 0-M, 0-L 11 – L 

2 of 2 East Bay 

Connections 1-H, 2-M, 0-L 0-H, 0-M, 0-L 0 – L 

Station Location Options 

Pleasanton (I-680/Bernal Rd) 0-H, 0-M, 0-L 0-H, 0-M, 0-L 0 – L 

Pleasanton (BART) 0-H, 0-M, 0-L 0-H, 0-M, 0-L 0 – L 

Livermore (Downtown) 0-H, 0-M, 4-L 0-H, 0-M, 0-L 0 – L 

Livermore (I-580) 0-H, 0-M, 0-L 0-H, 0-M, 0-L 0 – L 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.16 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.16-8

Corridor 

Possible Alignments 

Alignment 

Alternative 

Section 4(f) Parks/ 

Recreational 

Resources (H,M,L) 

Section 6(f) Water 

Conservation Fund 

Properties 

Known Historical 

Resources Within 

500 Feet of 

Centerline and 

Overall Ranking of 

Alignment 

Alternative (H,M,L) 

Livermore (Greenville Road/UPRR) 0-H, 0-M, 0-L 0-H, 0-M, 0-L 0 – L 

Livermore (Greenville Road/I-580) 0-H, 0-M, 0-L 0-H, 0-M, 0-L 0 – L 

Tracy (Downtown) 0-H, 0-M, 0-L 0-H, 0-M, 0-L 0 – L 

Tracy (ACE) 0-H, 0-M, 0-L 0-H, 0-M, 0-L 0 – L 

San 

Francisco 

Bay 

Crossings 

1 of 2 Trans Bay 

Crossing – 

Transbay 

Transit Center 

1-H, 0-M, 0-L 0-H, 0-M, 0-L 3 – L 

 Trans Bay 

Crossing – 4th

& King 

0-H, 0-M, 0-L 0-H, 0-M, 0-L 0 – L 

1 of 6 

Dumbarton 

(High Bridge) 4-H, 1-M, 3-L 0-H, 0-M, 0-L 0 – L 

Dumbarton 

(Low Bridge) 4-H, 1-M, 3-L 0-H, 0-M, 0-L 0 – L 

Dumbarton 

(Tube) 4-H, 1-M, 3-L 0-H, 0-M, 0-L 0 – L 

Fremont 

Central Park 

(High Bridge) 

5-H, 1-M, 0-L 0-H, 0-M, 0-L 0 – L 

Fremont 

Central Park 

(Low Bridge) 

5-H, 1-M, 0-L 0-H, 0-M, 0-L 0 – L 

Fremont 

Central Park 

(Tube) 

5-H, 1-M, 0-L 0-H, 0-M, 0-L 0 – L 

Station Location Options 

Union City (Shinn) 0-H, 1-M, 0-L 0-H, 0-M, 1-L 0 – L 

Central 

Valley 

1 of 6 

BNSF – UPRR 3-H, 7-M, 2-L 0-H, 0-M, 0-L 28 – L 

BNSF 3-H, 7-M, 2-L 0-H, 0-M, 0-L 17 – L 

UPRR N/S 5-H, 5-M, 2-L 1-H, 0-M, 0-L 67 – M 

BNSF Castle 3-H, 7-M, 2-L 0-H, 0-M, 0-L 21 – L 

UPRR – BNSF 

Castle 5-H, 5-M, 2-L 1-H, 0-M, 0-L 24 – M 

UPRR – BNSF 5-H, 5-M, 2-L 1-H, 0-M, 0-L 31 – M 

Station Location Options 

Modesto (Downtown) 0-H, 0-M, 0-L 0-H, 0-M, 0-L 0 – M 

Briggsmore (Amtrak) 0-H, 0-M, 0-L 0-H, 0-M, 0-L 0 – L 

Merced (Downtown) 0-H, 0-M, 1-L 0-H, 0-M, 0-L 0 – M 

Castle AFB 0-H, 0-M, 0-L 0-H, 0-M, 0-L 0 – L 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.16 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.16-9

D. SAN FRANCISCO TO SAN JOSE CORRIDOR 

Parkland and Wildlife Refuges

San Francisco to Dumbarton Alignment Alternative 

This alignment alternative contains a variety of Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources, including 

approximately 17 local parks within 900 ft (274 m) that could be affected. This alignment alternative 

could directly impact up to five Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources within 150 ft (46 m). 

Dumbarton to San Jose Alignment Alternative 

Within the Dumbarton to San Jose alignment alternative, there are a variety of Section 4(f) and 6(f) 

resources, including approximately 13 regional and local parks within 900 ft (274 m) of the HST 

alignment. Approximately three 4(f) resources adjacent to the corridor could be directly affected by 

the Dumbarton to San Jose alignment alternative. 

This alignment alternative would be in the existing railroad corridor as it passes most of these 

resources between the cities of San Francisco and San Jose, and it is not likely to have a significant 

impact on 4(f) or 6(f) resources. 

Cultural Resources

San Francisco to Dumbarton Alignment Alternative 

This alignment alternative has a high density of cultural resources within the city of San Francisco. In 

total, there are 16 archaeological resources and 35 recorded architectural resources. The area has 

been developed since the 1850s and therefore is rich in historical architecture as well as 

archaeological sites. The majority of prehistoric sites are shell middens, and many of the historical 

sites are deposits from various activities dating from the late 1800s as well as the earthquake in 

1906. The alignment alternative in San Francisco goes through numerous historic districts, including 

the 2nd Street District, the Aronson District, and the Rincon Point/South Beach District. This portion 

of the alignment alternative includes the 1925 Army-Navy YMCA building, the 1950 Sailors Union of 

the Pacific building, the 1910 Commercial Block Building, the 1937 Metropolitan Electric building, the 

World War II era 3rd Street Retail Office Building, the China Basin Warehouse (ca. 1892), the Coal 

Gasification Facility (ca. 1900), and the Burlingame Commercial Building (ca. 1920s). This portion 

also contains the 1939 Transbay Terminal. The historic Transbay Terminal will be replaced with a 

new structure as part of the new Transbay Transit Center sometime between 2008 and 2014. This 

alignment alternative has a high sensitivity for prehistoric, historical, and architectural resources. No 

traditional cultural properties were identified within the APE. 

Dumbarton to San Jose Alignment Alternative 

This alignment alternative has a low density of previously recorded cultural resources until it reaches 

San Jose, where it has a high density of cultural resources. A total of 10 archaeological resources 

and 24 architectural resources are located within the APE. These include a 1927 commercial 

building, the 1941 Silver Springs Underpass, the 1898 Sunol Aqueduct, the 1861 Sanborn/Bunting 

House, segments of the San Francisco and San Jose Railroad (ca.1860s), and recorded residential 

properties from the 1890s to the 1940s. The alignment alternative also contains additional historic 

structures including the city of Mountain View adobe (ca. 1933), the FMC complex in San Jose (ca. 

1948), the Union Pacific Rail yard Complex (ca. 1925), and recorded residential buildings dated from 

the 1880s to the 1940s. One archaeological site in San Jose, the Santa Clara de Asis Mission, 

includes both prehistoric and historic resources. The Mission was built by the Spanish in the late 

eighteenth century in order to convert local Native Americans to Christianity. Many of the neophyte 

converts lived in villages on the perimeter of the mission complex resulting in a mix of historical and 

prehistoric archaeological deposits, including burials. The portion of the Dumbarton to San Jose 

alignment alternative that traverses San Jose has a high sensitivity for prehistoric, historical, and 

architectural resources. No traditional cultural properties were identified within the APE. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.16 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.16-10

San Francisco to San Jose Corridor Station Location Options 

Two of the station location options have recorded cultural resources that are within the APE. Millbrae 

Train Station was built in 1907 after a fire that destroyed the original station built in 1864. It is now 

a railroad museum located approximately 200 ft from the modern train station. The Palo Alto train 

station was built in 1941 and included on the NRHP in 1996. The station location options within San 

Francisco do not have recorded cultural resources within the APE but have a large number of 

unrecorded architectural resources adjacent to them, including the 1939 Transbay Terminal, as 

discussed above. 

E. OAKLAND TO SAN JOSE CORRIDOR 

Parkland and Wildlife Refuges

West Oakland to Niles Junction Alignment Alternative 

Within the West Oakland to Niles Junction alignment alternative, there are a variety of Section 4(f) 

and 6(f) resources, including approximately 17 regional and local parks within 900 ft (274 m) of HST 

alignments. Approximately five 4(f) and 6(f) resources adjacent to the corridor could be directly 

affected by this alignment alternative. Nine 4(f) and 6(f) resources could also be indirectly affected 

by the West Oakland to Niles Junction Alignment Alternative because they are between 150 ft (46 m) 

and 450 ft (137 m) from the proposed alignment. 

12th Street/City Center to Niles Junction Alignment Alternative 

Approximately 19 local and regional parks are within 900 ft (274 m) of the 12th Street/City Center to 

Niles Junction alignment alternative. Six of the 4(f) and 6(f) resources are adjacent to the corridor 

and could be directly affected by the HST Alignment Alternative. Eight 4(f) and 6(f) resources could 

also be indirectly affected by the alignment alternative because they are between 150 ft (46 m) and 

450 ft (137 m) from the proposed alignment. 

Niles Junction to San Jose via Trimble Alignment Alternative. 

Within the Niles Junction to San Jose via Trimble alignment alternative, there are a variety of Section 

4(f) and 6(f) resources, including approximately eight regional and local parks within 900 ft (274 m) 

of HST alignments. Two facilities, Fremont Central Park and Grimmer Park, are adjacent to the 

alignment alternative and could be directly affected by the project. One 4(f) and 6(f) resource, 

Pinewood Park, could also be indirectly affected by the Niles Junction to San Jose via Trimble 

alignment alternative because it is between 150 ft (46 m) and 450 ft (137 m) from the proposed 

alignment. 

Niles Junction to San Jose via I-880 Alignment Alternative 

There are a variety of Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources within the Niles Junction to San Jose via I-880 

alignment alternative, including approximately seven regional and local parks within 900 ft (274 m) of 

the alignment alternative. There are five adjacent facilities that could be directly affected by the 

Niles Junction to San Jose via I-880 alignment alternative. One 4(f) and 6(f) resource, Pinewood 

Park, could also be indirectly affected by this alignment alternative because it is between 150 ft (46 

m) and 450 ft (137 m) from the proposed alignment. 

Because the majority of these alignment alternatives would be within existing transportation right-ofway, impacts to parks and wildlife resources are not anticipated. 

Cultural Resources

West Oakland to Niles Junction Alignment Alternative 

In total, there are six recorded archaeological sites and 18 recorded architectural resources within the 

APE of this alignment alternative. The majority of resources are located within the city of Oakland. 

These include the 1924 Clorox Chemical Building, the 1926 PG&E Gas Compressor House, industrial 

complexes dating from the 1920s and 1940s, and 12 recorded residential properties dating from the 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.16 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.16-11

1880s to the 1940s. Prehistoric sites in this area tend to be shell middens and occupation sites. 

Historical sites as well as architectural resources are typically associated with the late 1800s to early 

1900s. The alignment alternative also traverses the Old Oakland Historic District. Portions of the 

alignment alternative outside Oakland have a medium to low sensitivity. This alignment alternative 

has a high density of cultural resources and has a high sensitivity for prehistoric, historic, and 

architectural resources. No traditional cultural properties were identified within the APE. 

12th Street/City Center to Niles Junction Alignment Alternative 

This alignment alternative has the highest density of cultural resources within this corridor. In total, 

there are 11 recorded archaeological sites and 21 recorded architectural resources within the APE. 

As in the West Oakland to Niles Junction alignment alternative, the majority of resources are located 

within the city of Oakland. These include the White Brothers’ Hardwood Store (ca. 1927), the WeldRite Company Building (ca. 1925), the Art Moderne Sales office building (ca. 1938), and 18 recorded 

residential properties dating from the 1880s to the 1920s. This alignment alternative has a high 

sensitivity for prehistoric, historical, and architectural resources. No traditional cultural properties 

were identified within the APE. 

Niles Junction to San Jose via Trimble Alignment Alternative 

This alignment alternative has the second highest density of cultural resources within this corridor. 

In total, there are three recorded archaeological sites and eight recorded architectural resources 

within the APE. As in the Dumbarton to San Jose alignment alternative, the majority of resources are 

located within the San Jose, which includes the Santa Clara de Asis Mission. This portion of the 

project includes the Kraft Foods plant (ca.1950), the Moderne Factory building (ca. 1940), and 18 

recorded residential properties. The portion of this alignment alternative that traverses San Jose is 

sensitive for prehistoric, historical, and architectural resources. 

Niles Junction to San Jose via I-880 Alignment Alternative 

This alignment alternative has two archaeological resources and two recorded architectural resources 

dating from 1928 and 1945. It has a medium sensitivity for archaeological and architectural 

resources. 

Oakland to San Jose Corridor Station Location Options 

None of the station location options have recorded cultural resources that are within the APE or 

directly adjacent to the APE, though the station location options within Oakland have a large number 

of unrecorded architectural resources adjacent to them. 

F. SAN JOSE TO CENTRAL VALLEY CORRIDOR 

Parkland and Wildlife Refuges

Pacheco Alignment Alternative 

This alignment alternative, which runs between the cities of San Jose and Gilroy, is within 900 ft (274 

m) of approximately seven Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources. Three of the resources (Edenvale Garden 

and Coyote Creek parks north of Gilroy and the Upper Cottonwood Wildlife Area west of Interstate 5) 

could be directly affected by the HST because they are within 150 ft (46 m). There would be no 

impacts to nearby Henry Coe State Park because it is not within 900 ft (274 m) of the alignment 

alternative, with State Route 152 acting as a barrier between the HST alignment and the park. 

Henry Miller (UPRR) and Henry Miller (BNSF) Alignment Alternatives 

East of the San Luis Reservoir, there are two Section 4(f) resources (San Luis Wildlife Refuge and Los 

Banos Wildlife Area) along the Henry Miller alignment alternative that begins just north of the San 

Luis Reservoir and traverses east to the City of Merced. The proposed alignment alternative would 

pass north of the O’Neil Forebay Wildlife Area and continue north and parallel of Henry Miller Road, 

north of the City of Los Banos. There would be no impacts to Pacheco State Park, the San Luis 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.16 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.16-12

Reservoir Wildlife Area, O’Neil Forebay Wildlife Area, the San Luis State Recreation Area, or the 

Lower Cottonwood Wildlife Area surrounding the San Luis Reservoir. The Volta Wildlife Area near Los 

Banos would also not be impacted because the alignment alternative would be beyond 900 ft (274 

m) of the wildlife area’s southern boundary. 

GEA North Alignment Alternative 

East of the San Luis Reservoir, there are three Section 4(f) resources (San Luis Wildlife Refuge, North 

Grasslands Wildlife Area, and Great Valley Grasslands State Park) along the GEA North alignment 

alternative that begins just north of the San Luis Reservoir and traverses east to the City of Merced 

north of Los Banos. The proposed alignment alternative would pass through and directly affect the 

San Luis National Wildlife Refuge, north of the City of Los Banos. The alignment alternative would 

come within 150 ft (46 m), but not encroach into, the boundaries of the North Grasslands Wildlife 

Area and the Great Valley Grasslands State Park; therefore, these resources could only be indirectly 

affected by this alternative. 

Cultural Resources

Pacheco Alignment Alternative 

This alignment alternative roughly follows SR 152 through the Pacheco Pass. Little development has 

taken place in this area. In total, four recorded architectural resources were found to be located 

within the project APE. Of these, two are historic canals and one is a bridge. There are also likely 

historic resources in the Santa Clara Valley, including Morgan Hill and Gilroy. A total of seven 

previously recorded archaeological resources are located within the APE. Three of them are small 

prehistoric sites that typically include midden and lithic debitage. Though little archaeological work 

has been conducted in this area, it is known to be highly sensitive for prehistoric archaeological 

resources. Overall, this alignment has medium sensitivity for cultural resources. 

Henry Miller (UPRR Connection) Alignment Alternative 

The majority of this alignment alternative is in Merced County in the Central Valley. Much of the area 

has seen little development historically. Previously recorded resources present include one 

archaeological site and four architectural resources. Overall, this alignment alternative has a medium 

sensitivity for cultural resources. 

Henry Miller (BNSF Connection) Alignment Alternative 

This alignment alternative would have the same known resources as identified for the Henry Miller 

(UPRR Connection) alignment alternative. 

GEA North Alignment Alternative 

This alignment alternative is in Merced County in the Central Valley. Much of the area has seen little 

development historically. Previously recorded resources present include four archaeological sites and 

five architectural resources. All four of the archaeological resources are prehistoric sites including a 

habitation site and human burials just west of the city of Merced. Overall, this alignment alternative 

has medium sensitivity for cultural resources. 

San Jose to Central Valley Corridor Station Location Options 

Only the San Jose Diridon station location option within this corridor has a recorded architectural 

resource that is within the APE or directly adjacent to the APE. 

G. EAST BAY TO CENTRAL VALLEY CORRIDOR 

Parkland and Wildlife Refuges

I-680/580/UPRR Alignment Alternative 

The I-680/580/UPRR alignment alternative is within 900 ft (274 m) of approximately 12 Section 4(f) 

and 6(f) resources. Seven of the resources, including the Augustin-Bernal and Muirwood parks in 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.16 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.16-13

Pleasanton, the Dublin Sports Grounds Complex, Vargas Plateau, and three trails operated by the 

EBRPD are within 150 ft (46 m) of the proposed alignment alternative and could be directly affected 

by the HST. Three additional parks are within 450 ft (137 m) of the alignment alternative; 

Meadowlark and Val Vista parks in Pleasanton and the Las Positas Golf Course in Livermore and could 

be indirectly affected. 

I-580/UPRR Alignment Alternative 

There are 10 Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources within 900 ft (274 m) of the I-580/UPRR alignment 

alternative. One park, the Augustin-Bernal Park in Pleasanton, the Vargas Plateau and three trails 

operated by the EBRPD could be directly affected by this alignment alternative. Three additional 

Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources—the Fairways Golf Course in Pleasanton, the Shadow Cliffs Regional 

Recreation Area, and Las Positas Golf Course in Livermore—are within 450 ft (137 m) of the 

alignment alternative and could be indirectly affected. 

Patterson Pass/UPRR 

The Patterson Pass/UPRR alignment alternative is within 900 ft (274 m) of approximately 12 Section 

4(f) and 6(f) resources. The Augustin-Bernal Park, Vargas Plateau, and three trails operated by the 

EBRPD are Section 4(f) or 6(f) resources within 150 ft (46 m) of the proposed alignment alternative 

and could be directly affected by the project. The alignment alternative could have an indirect 

impact on an additional five 4(f) or 6(f) resources (Fairways Golf Course, Shadow Cliffs Regional 

Recreation Area, Oak Knoll Pioneer Memorial Park, Doolan Park, and Madiera Park) that are within 

450 ft (137 m). 

UPRR 

Within 900 ft (274 m) of the UPRR alignment alternative, there are approximately 12 Section 4(f) and 

6(f) resources that could be affected. The Augustin-Bernal Park, Vargas Plateau, and three trails 

operated by the EBRPD are Section 4(f) or 6(f) resources within 150 ft (46 m) of the proposed 

alignment alternative and could be directly affected by the project. Indirect impacts to five Section 

4(f) and 6(f) resources within 450 ft (137 m) could occur at the Fairways Golf Course and Shadow 

Cliffs Regional Recreational Area in Pleasanton and Oak Knoll Pioneer Memorial, Doolan, and Madiera 

Parks in Livermore. 

Tracy Downtown (BNSF and UPRR Connections) 

The Tracy Downtown alignment alternatives are within 900 ft (274 m) of approximately seven 

Section 4(f) resources and no Section 6(f) resources. There are no Section 4(f) resources that would 

be directly affected by these alignment alternatives. Two parks, Quail Ridge Park and Cotta Park, are 

within 450 ft (137 m) of the alignment alternatives and could have the potential for indirect impacts. 

Tracy ACE Station (BNSF and UPRR Connections) 

Both Tracy ACE Station alignment alternatives are within 900 ft (274 m) of two Section 4(f) resources 

and no Section 6(f) resources within the study area. There are no Section 4(f) resources that would 

be directly affected by these alignment alternatives. Two parks are within 450 ft (137 m) of the 

alignment alternatives and could have the potential to be indirectly affected by the proposed project. 

Cultural Resources

I-680/580/UPRR Alignment Alternative 

This alignment alternative spans from the eastern Bay Area to the Livermore Valley and has the 

highest density of cultural resources within this corridor. Much of the area has seen recent 

development. Along this alignment alternative there are eight previously recorded archaeological 

sites. There are 12 recorded architectural resources including the Western Pacific Railroad Buildings 

(ca. 1909), the Kennedy Ranch (ca. 1890), and 10 residential (mainly craftsman) properties dating 

from 1910 to 1940. The archaeological resources are prehistoric sites. Overall, this alignment 

alternative has medium sensitivity for cultural resources. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.16 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.16-14

I-580/UPRR Alignment Alternative 

The Livermore Valley has seen little archaeological work until recently, though it is known to be rich 

in prehistoric resources, including large habitation sites and burials. Several unrecorded burials are 

located immediately adjacent to the APE of this alignment alternative just west of the City of 

Livermore. Previously recorded resources present include six archaeological sites and 11 

architectural resources. Recorded resources include a 1947 industrial warehouse, the Quonset 

Warehouse (ca. 1950s), the West Altamont Underpass (ca. 1909), and 8 recorded residential 

properties dating between 1890 and the 1930s. The archaeological resources are prehistoric sites. 

Overall, this alignment alternative has medium sensitivity for cultural resources. 

Patterson Pass/UPRR Alignment Alternative 

This alignment alternative includes three previously recorded archaeological resources and three 

architectural resources. Overall, this alignment alternative has low sensitivity for cultural resources. 

UPRR Alignment Alternative 

This alignment alternative includes five previously recorded archaeological resources and one 

architectural resource. Overall, this alignment alternative has low sensitivity for cultural resources. 

Tracy Downtown (BNSF Connection) Alignment Alternative 

This alignment alternative includes eight previously recorded archaeological resources and 10 

architectural resources. Some of the archaeological sites are prehistoric and include midden sites 

with few to no artifacts or related materials. Overall, this alignment alternative has low sensitivity for 

cultural resources. The majority of the architectural resources are located south of Tracy. 

Tracy ACE Station (BNSF Connection) Alignment Alternative 

This alignment alternative includes two previously recorded archaeological resources and 13 

architectural resources. Recorded resources include eight World War II era warehouses, a 1952 U.S. 

Army Depot Flag Pole, and four U.S. Army Depot buildings from the 1950s. Some of the 

archaeological sites are prehistoric and include midden sites with few to no artifacts or related 

materials. The majority of the architectural resources are located south of Lathrop. Overall, this 

alignment alternative has low sensitivity for cultural resources. 

Tracy ACE Station (UPRR Connection) Alignment Alternative 

This alignment segment includes two previously recorded archaeological resources and 10 

architectural resources. Similar to the other Tracy alignment alternatives, the archaeological 

resources include midden sites and the majority of the architectural resources are located south of 

Lathrop. Overall, this alignment alternative has low sensitivity for cultural resources. 

Tracy Downtown (UPRR Connection) Alignment Alternative 

This alignment alternative includes eight previously recorded archaeological resources and seven 

recorded architectural resources. These include an undated wooden Western Pacific Railroad trestle, 

two industrial warehouses from the 1950s, residential properties from the 1940s, and an undated 

farmstead property. Similar to the Tracy Downtown (BNSF Connection) alignment alternative, the 

archaeological resources include midden sites and the majority of the architectural resources are 

located south of Tracy. Overall, this alignment alternative has low sensitivity for cultural resources. 

The west end of this alignment alternative extends through approximately 2 mi of Miocene 

sedimentary deposits similar to the Tracy Downtown (BNSF Connection) alignment alternative. 

Overall, this alignment alternative was identified to have a medium sensitivity for paleontological 

resources. 

East Bay Connections Alignment Alternative 

The East Bay Connections alignment alternative is not known to have cultural resources that are 

within the APE or directly adjacent to the APE. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.16 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.16-15

East Bay to Central Valley Corridor Station Location Options 

Based on the archival records search, none of the station location options have cultural resources 

that are within the APE or directly adjacent to the APE. The station location options were found to 

have a low sensitivity for cultural resources. 

H. SAN FRANCISCO BAY CROSSINGS 

Parkland and Wildlife Refuges

Transbay 

There is one Section 4(f) resource and no Section 6(f) resources near both Transbay alignment 

alternatives. South Park in San Francisco is approximately 150 ft (46 m) from the Transbay Transit 

Center alignment alternative, but because the proposed alignment would be in a tunnel, there is no 

anticipated impact on the park. The same park is over 1,000 ft (305 m) from the 4th and King 

alignment alternative, and therefore, there is a limited potential for indirect effect to the park. 

Dumbarton 

There are approximately eight Section 4(f) resources and no 6(f) resources near the Dumbarton 

alignment alternatives. Three Section 4(f) resources—the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National 

Wildlife Refuge, Kelly Park in Menlo Park, and the Newark Civic Center Park—would be adjacent to 

the proposed alignment alternatives and could be directly affected by the proposed project. The 

28,000-acre Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge, which is located in the region 

on the southeast side of the San Francisco Bay, is the largest urban wildlife refuge in the nation. It is 

home to millions of shorebirds and waterfowl, with a total of 250 bird species, including the 

endangered California clapper rail (Rallus longirostris obsoletus). Another special-status species in 

the refuge is the salt marsh harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris). The Ash Street Park in 

Newark is further away from the proposed alignment alternatives and could potentially be indirectly 

impacted. 

Fremont Central Park 

There are six Section 4(f) resources near the Fremont Central Park alignment alternatives. Five 

resources (Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge, Blacow Park, Fremont Central 

Park, Gomes Park, and Vallejo Mill Park) are adjacent to the proposed alignment alternatives and 

have a high potential to be directly affected by the project. The 28,000-acre Don Edwards San 

Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge, which is located in the region on the southeast side of the 

San Francisco Bay, is the largest urban wildlife refuge in the nation. It is home to millions of 

shorebirds and waterfowl, with a total of 250 bird species, including the endangered California 

clapper rail (Rallus longirostris obsoletus). Another special-status species in the refuge is the salt 

marsh harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris). Marshall Park in Fremont is within 450 ft (137 

m) of the proposed alignment alternatives and has the potential to be indirectly affected by the 

project. 

Cultural Resources

Trans Bay Crossing – Transbay Transit Center Alignment Alternative 

Most of this alignment alternative is below the San Francisco Bay and therefore has very low 

sensitivity for archaeological resources, though the terrestrial portions are highly sensitive for both 

historical archaeological deposits and architectural resources. One resource, the Transbay Terminal, 

was built in 1939 as a California Toll Bridge Authority facility in order to facilitate commuter rail travel 

across the lower portion of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge. The historic Transbay Terminal will 

be replaced with a new structure as part of the new Transbay Transit Center sometime between 

2008 and 2014. Another resource within the APE is the Historic Ferry Building. Originally constructed 

in 1903, it was the second busiest transportation terminal in the world during the 1930s. Past 

subsurface archaeological testing has revealed that much of the area is fill rich with historic artifacts 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.16 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.16-16

from the Gold Rush period through the 1906 earthquake and resulting fire. This alignment also 

traverses the Embarcadero Piers Historic District. 

Trans Bay Crossing – 4th and King Alignment Alternative 

Like the Trans Bay Crossing – Transbay Transit Center alignment alternative, this alignment 

alternative is below the San Francisco Bay and therefore has very low sensitivity for archaeological 

resources, though the terrestrial portions are highly sensitive for both historical archaeological 

deposits and architectural resources. Past subsurface archaeological testing has revealed that much 

of the area is fill rich with historic artifacts from the Gold Rush period through the 1906 earthquake 

and resulting fire. 

Dumbarton Alignment Alternatives (High Bridge, Low Bridge, Tube) 

Four recorded archaeological resources were identified along these alignment alternatives. The 

prehistoric sites include a habitation site associated with burials while others are historic sites 

resulting from early 1900s industrial activities. No recorded architectural resources were identified in 

the records search for these alignment alternatives. 

Freemont Central Park Alignment Alternatives (High Bridge, Low Bridge, Tube) 

No recorded archaeological or architectural resources were identified in the records search for these 

alignment alternatives. 

I. CENTRAL VALLEY CORRIDOR 

Parkland and Wildlife Refuges

UPRR 

There are approximately 12 Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources within 900 ft (274 m) of the UPRR 

alignment. The alignment has the potential to directly affect four Section 4(f) and one Section 6(f) 

resources, including the Tuolumne Regional Park, County Park in Salida, the Stanislaus County 

Fairgrounds, and Broadway and Central Parks in Turlock. Five additional resources have the potential 

to be indirectly affected by the alignment alternative. 

BNSF 

Along the BNSF alignment, approximately 12 Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources are within 900 ft (274 

m). Main Street Park in Escalon, Zerillo Park in Riverbank, and the Jacob Meyer Regional Park in an 

unincorporated portion of San Joaquin County are within 150 ft (46 m) of this alignment and could be 

potentially impacted directly. There are seven other resources that are within 450 ft (137 m) of the 

alignment and could have the potential to be indirectly affected by the project. 

Cultural Resources

BNSF/UPRR Alignment Alternative 

This alignment alternative, and all alignment alternatives within this corridor, trends north-south 

through the Central Valley beginning south of Stockton to just south of Chowchilla. This alignment 

alternative generally follows existing railroad lines. In total, there is one previously recorded 

archaeological resource and 27 architectural resources. These include a 1947 railroad trestle, a 1950 

flatcar railroad bridge, Robertson Boulevard (ca. 1913), Redrock Winery (ca. 1920), Le Grand Canal 

(ca. 1910), and 22 recorded residential properties dating between 1920 and the 1940s. Most of the 

architectural resources are within the cities of Escalon and Chowchilla. While some of the 

architectural resources are single-family residences built in the early 1900s, others are features 

associated with the railroad. Overall, this alignment alternative has low sensitivity for cultural 

resources. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.16 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.16-17

BNSF Alignment Alternative 

Similar to the BNSF-UPRR alignment alternative, this alignment alternative generally follows existing 

railroad lines. In total there is one previously recorded archaeological resource and 16 recorded 

architectural resources. These include the 1912 Escalon Water and Auxiliary Water Systems; the 

1935 Escalon Sanitary Sewer System; portions of the 1895 Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railroad; 

Bud’s Frosties (ca. 1946); Farmer Bill’s Produce (ca. 1940); and 11 recorded residential properties 

dating between 1910 and the 1940s. Most of the architectural resources are within or around the City 

of Escalon. Overall, this alignment alternative has low sensitivity for cultural resources. 

UPRR N/S Alignment Alternative 

Similar to the BNSF-UPRR alignment alternative, this alignment alternative generally follows existing 

railroad lines. In total, there are four previously recorded archaeological resources and 63 

architectural resources. Some of the archaeological resources are prehistoric sites, including a 

habitation site associated with burials, while others are historic sites resulting from early 1900s 

industrial activities. Most of the architectural resources are around the communities of Delhi, 

Livingston, Atwater, and Chowchilla. There are a series of historic canals recorded in this portion of 

the alignment alternative including the Ashe Lateral (ca. 1890s), the Fairfield Canal (ca. 1910), the 

1920 Arena Canal, and seven other unnamed canals dating to ca. 1900. There are also four freeway 

bridges dating from the 1940s. This portion includes la Fuentes Market (ca.1940) and A.V. Produce 

(ca. 1925), as well as 43 recorded residential properties dating from the 1890s to the 1950s. Overall, 

this alignment alternative has medium sensitivity for cultural resources. 

BNSF Castle Alignment Alternative 

Similar to the BNSF-UPRR alignment alternative, this alignment alternative generally follows existing 

railroad lines. In total, there is one previously recorded archaeological resource and 20 architectural 

resources. Most of the architectural resources are within the cities of Escalon and Chowchilla, such 

as the Escalon Motel (ca. 1940s), a 1926 Texaco Station, and Wright’s Petroleum (ca. 1918). Some 

of the architectural resources are single-family residences (11 recorded) built in the early 1900s. 

There are also several features associated with the railroad such as a 1909 wooden railroad trestle 

and portions of the Tidewater Southern Railroad dating from 1912. Overall, this alignment 

alternative has low sensitivity for cultural resources. 

UPRR-BNSF Castle Alignment Alternative 

Similar to the BNSF-UPRR alignment alternative, this alignment alternative generally follows existing 

railroad lines. In total, there are four previously recorded archaeological resources and 20 

architectural resources. The recorded architectural resources include the Riverbank Library (ca. 

1899), irrigation canals (ca. 1900), a 1904 railroad bridge, a 1910 farmstead, and numerous (13 

recorded) residential properties dating between 1900 and 1950. This portion also contains segments 

of the 1895 Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railroads. Some of the archaeological resources are 

prehistoric sites, including a habitation site associated with burials, while others are historic sites 

resulting from early 1900s industrial activities. Most of the architectural resources are around the 

cities of Modesto and Merced. Overall, this alignment alternative has medium sensitivity for cultural 

resources. 

UPRR-BNSF Alignment Alternative 

Similar to the BNSF-UPRR alignment alternative, this alignment alternative generally follows existing 

railroad lines. There are four previously recorded archaeological resources within this alignment 

alternative. There are 27 recorded architectural resources, including three ca. 1940 highway bridges, 

abandoned segments of State Route 99 that are potentially historic, 1940s farms and associated 

structures, and numerous (19 recorded) residential properties dating between ca. 1900 and 1950. 

Some of the archaeological resources are prehistoric sites, including a habitation site associated with 

burials, while others are historic sites resulting from early 1900s industrial activities. Most of the 

architectural resources are around Chowchilla. Overall, this alignment alternative has medium 

sensitivity for cultural resources. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.16 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.16-18

Central Valley Corridor Station Location Options 

Based on the archival records search, none of the station location options have known cultural 

resources that are within the APE or directly adjacent to the APE. Only the Modesto (Downtown) and 

Merced (Downtown) station location options were found to have a medium sensitivity for cultural 

resources. 

3.16.4 Impact Avoidance Strategies, Including Alternatives Screened from Further 

Consideration 

Throughout the environmental review process, and particularly in the identification of potential HST 

alignment alternatives and station location options, the Authority has emphasized avoidance of and 

minimizing harm to the environment. One of the Authority’s policies, as stated in Chapter 1, is “to 

maximize the use of existing transportation corridors and right-of-way to the extent feasible.” This policy 

is one of the primary impact avoidance strategies for the proposed HST system and was applied during 

preparation of the statewide HST Program EIR/EIS. This policy was carried forward and used in the 

scoping process and successive screening stages of this program environmental process (see Chapter 2, 

“Alternatives”). The screening evaluation considered the potential impacts of the various alignments and 

all the environmental parameters, including impacts on Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources. Based on the 

overall screening evaluation, in the Bay Area, different alignment alternatives were developed that avoid 

4(f) and 6(f) resources, including Henry W. Coe State Park, to a great extent. At the end of this process, 

prudent and feasible general alignment alternatives were identified for each corridor of the entire Bay 

Area to Central Valley study region. 

3.16.5 Avoidance Alternatives or Reasons for No Prudent or Feasible Alternative for Use 

of Section 4(f) or 6(f) Resource 

Design studies and project-level environmental review for a proposed HST system would evaluate specific 

alignment alternatives selected for further study, identify potential uses of Section 4(f) and 6(f) 

resources, and seek additional opportunities to avoid or substantially reduce potential adverse impacts of 

these alternatives on Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources. 

Potential direct impacts on many Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources could be avoided by remaining within 

existing railroad right-of-way, or moving horizontally within the right-of-way, where feasible. Avoidance 

of Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources would be further explored during project-level design and 

environmental evaluation. Project-level evaluations of Section 4(f) and 6(f) resource use would include 

evaluating the avoidance alternatives and making determinations regarding prudent or feasible 

alternatives for uses of Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources. 

There are several potential Section 4(f) and 6(f) recreation resources and cultural resources within or 

immediately adjacent to the HST Alignment Alternatives. Avoidance of these resources would be possible 

in many cases by redesigning or narrowing the disturbance limits, in combination with noise walls and/or 

visual screening. However, there may be locations where avoidance could not be achieved, possibly for 

one of more of the following reasons. 

• The HST Alignment Alternatives cannot be shifted easily because of the large turning radii required 

for HST operations and other design considerations. A minor shift in one location on the HST 

alignment could result in a substantial shift elsewhere on the alignment, potentially resulting in 

impacts on other Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources. 

• Measures to reduce potential proximity impacts, such as noise walls, could result in potential adverse 

visual impacts on Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources. During project-level review, potential measures to 

minimize harm at each potentially affected resource would need to be analyzed in consultation with 

the owners of the resources to ensure that measures to minimize harm would not adversely affect 

the values of the Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.16 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.16-19

3.16.6 Mitigation Strategies and CEQA Significance Conclusions 

The HST system could result in direct impacts to lands containing publicly owned parks and recreational 

resources by placing HST facilities on them. It could result in indirect impacts to these resources due to 

construction activities or HST system operations that adversely affect the use of publicly owned parks and 

recreational resources. The use of existing transportation corridors for HST facilities and the design 

direction that HST stations should serve as multi-modal transportation hubs has minimized the potential 

for the HST system impacts and constructive use of parks and recreational resources. In addition to 

addressing noise, biology, and air quality impacts in other sections, the section identifies the park, open 

space, wildlife preserves, and recreational resources located within the following categories: 0 to 150 ft 

(0 to 46 m), 150 to 450 ft (46 to 137 m), and 450 to 900 ft (137 to 274 m) from the centerline of HST 

alignment alternatives or station location options. Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources within the 0 to 150-

foot distance are deemed as a direct and potentially significant impact under CEQA and as a potential 

constructive use of cultural resources under Section 4(f). This analysis identified a total of 40 4(f) and 

6(f) resources within 150 ft of the centerlines for all of the alignment alternatives. The total number 

actually affected would be less than 40, depending on the Network Alternative selected (See Chapter 7). 

Resources in the 150 to 450-foot distance could also be significantly affected. Additionally, certain local, 

regional, or federal recreational resources could be affected. At the program level, it is not possible to 

know precisely the location, extent, and particular characteristics of impacts to park resources. Due to 

this uncertainty, as it was for the purposes of system-wide review at the programmatic level, this impact 

is considered significant for this programmatic review of the Bay Area to Central Valley study region. 

The following mitigation strategies can be refined and applied at the project-specific level and would 

reduce this impact: 

1. Continue to apply design practices to avoid impacts to park resources, and when avoidance cannot 

be accommodated, minimize the scale of the impact. 

2. Apply measures at the project level to reduce and minimize indirect/proximity impacts as appropriate 

for the particular sites affected, while avoiding other adverse impacts (e.g., visual), such as noise 

barriers, visual buffers, and landscaping. 

3. Apply measures to modify access to/egress from the recreational resource to reduce impacts to these 

resources. 

4. Design and construct cuts, fill, and aerial structures to avoid and minimize visual impacts to units of 

the state park system. 

5. Incorporate wildlife under or over crossings at appropriate intervals as necessary. 

6. Where public parklands acquired with public funds would be acquired for nonpark use as part of the 

HST system, commit as required by law to providing funds for the acquisition of substantially 

equivalent substitute parkland or to acquiring/providing substitute parkland of comparable 

characteristics. 

7. Restore affected parklands to natural state and replace or restore affected park facilities. 

8. If park facilities must be relocated, provide planning studies as well as appropriate design and 

replacement with minimal impact on park use. 

9. Use local native plants for revegetation. 

10. Develop and implement construction practices, including scheduling, to limit impacts to wildlife, 

wildlife corridors, and visitor use areas within public parks. 

11. For temporary unavoidable loss of park and recreation facility uses, consider providing compensation. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.16 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.16-20

The mitigation strategies described above would substantially lessen or avoid this impact; however, 

sufficient information is not available at the program level to conclude with certainty that mitigation 

would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level in all circumstances. Therefore, at the 

programmatic level, the potential for impacts to parks and recreational facilities is considered significant. 

Planning efforts would be undertaken as a part of the project-level documentation phase to minimize 

harm to the Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources. This is anticipated to include measures that may be taken to 

mitigate potential adverse environmental impacts, such as beautification measures, replacement of land 

or structures or their equivalents on or near their existing site(s), tunneling, cut and cover, cut and fill, 

treatment of embankments, planting, screening, creating wildlife corridors, acquisition of land for 

preservation, installation of noise barriers, and establishment of pedestrian or bicycle paths. Other 

potential mitigation strategies could be identified during the project-level public review process. 

3.16.7 Subsequent Analysis 

The Section 4(f) and 6(f) evaluation process would be more focused at the project-level. Given the broad 

focus of analysis for this Program EIR/EIS, the primary goal for project-level analysis would be to identify 

Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources and potential adverse effects in greater detail, any uses that may occur, 

the existence of potential prudent and feasible alternatives, and potential mitigation measures. 

The following items would be included in the Section 4(f) and 6(f) evaluations at the project level. 

• Detailed physical descriptions of a specific portion of the proposed HST system (including plans and 

profiles). 

• Updated list of all Section 4(f) and 6(f) recreation resources (including publicly owned conservation 

easements) in proximity to the proposed alignment alternative centerlines and project components, 

using the most recent mapping available, such as annually updated Thomas Bros. maps, general 

plans, state Web sites, and local jurisdiction web sites. 

• Updated list of NRHP-listed and NRHP-eligible cultural resources. As part of detailed cultural 

resources studies required for project-level environmental review (see Section 3.12.7), all previously 

identified potentially eligible resources would be further evaluated to determine NRHP eligibility. 

NRHP-eligible resources would be carried forward to the project-level Section 4(f) and 6(f) 

evaluation. Field reconnaissance would be needed to complete the required Section 4(f) inventory 

sheets. 

• List of the CRHR-listed and eligible resources and field reconnaissance to provide a complete 

inventory and description of these resources. 

• Descriptions of uses and functions of each Section 4(f) and 6(f) resource, including location map; 

size; services and facilities; annual patronage; unique qualities; relationship to other lands in the 

project vicinity; owner/operator; other relevant information regarding the resource; and explanation 

of the significance of the properties as determined by federal, state, regional, or local officials with 

jurisdiction over the resource. 

• Detailed descriptions of the proposed uses of and potential adverse effects on Section 4(f) and 6(f) 

resources and of the methods used to identify them. Specific potential impacts on each resource 

would be identified, including proximity impacts as a result of impacts on ambient noise, air quality, 

transportation, and visual resources. 

• Identification and refinement of strategies to avoid or minimize use of and adverse effects on Section 

4(f) and 6(f) resources by narrowing rights-of-way/disturbance limits, realigning/relocating project 

features, and developing other alignment adjustments. These strategies would analyze, as 

appropriate, the technical feasibility of possible mitigation, including cost estimates with figures 

showing percentage differences in total project costs, possibility of community or ecosystem 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.16 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.16-21

disruption, and other potential significant adverse environmental impacts of each alternative. These 

cost estimates should also show the financial, social, or ecological costs or potential adverse 

environmental impacts of each alternative, as well as any unique problems and extraordinary 

magnitudes of impacts. 

• Documentation of consultation with the affected local jurisdictions and owners/operators of the 

identified Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources. This would include documentation of concurrence or 

efforts to obtain concurrence from the public official or officials having jurisdiction over the Section 

4(f) and 6(f) resources and documentation of the planning to minimize harm to the affected 

resources. (Refer to Chapter 11, “Organization, Agency, and Business Outreach before Draft 

Program EIR/EIS Release,” for additional discussion of these consultations.) In addition to the 

mitigation proposed, the Section 4(f) and 6(f) evaluation should document the National Park Service’s 

tentative position relative to any proposed Section 6(f) conversion and should address the need for 

replacement lands under federal and California law (Federal Highway Administration 1987). 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.17-1

3.17 Cumulative Analysis 

3.17.1 Purpose and Content of This Section 

The purpose of this section is to summarize the potential cumulative physical and growth-related 

environmental consequences associated with the HST Network Alternatives.1

 The analysis focuses on 

regional scenarios and programmatic estimates of potential impacts; therefore, the magnitude of impacts 

reported in this document is likely to be considerably larger than the actual impacts that would be 

expected from the HST system in the study area. 

Refer to Chapter 3, “Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies,” and 

Chapter 7, “High-Speed Train Network and Alignment Alternatives Comparisons,” for a presentation of 

potential environmental consequences in each environmental resource area. 

This section is organized into the following sections: 

• Regulatory requirements and methods of evaluation. 

• Cumulative projects and growth projections. 

• Analysis of cumulative impacts by environmental resource area. 

3.17.2 Regulatory Requirements and Methods of Evaluation 

A. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

Under NEPA, a cumulative impact is the impact on the environment that results from the incremental 

impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions 

regardless of what agency (federal or nonfederal) or person undertakes such other actions. 

Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place 

over a period of time (40 CFR § 1508.7). 

A cumulative impact includes the total effect on a natural resource, ecosystem, or human community 

attributable to past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future activities or actions of federal, 

nonfederal, public, and private entities. Cumulative impacts also may include the effects of natural 

processes and events, depending on the specific resource in question. Cumulative impacts include the 

total of all impacts on a particular resource that have occurred, are occurring, and will likely occur as 

a result of any action or influence, including the direct and indirect impacts of a federal activity. 

Accordingly, there may be different levels of cumulative impacts on different environmental 

resources. 

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)

Under CEQA, cumulative impacts are defined as two or more individual effects that, when considered 

together, are considerable or compound or increase other environmental impacts. The cumulative 

impact from several projects is the change in the environment that results from the incremental 

impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively 

significant projects taking place over a period of time (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15355). 

 

1

 See Section 3.0, Introduction, for an explanation of how this section fits together with the HST Network Alternatives presented in 

Chapter 7, as well as for an overview of the information presented in the other chapters. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.17 Cumulative Impacts 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.17-2

A project’s contribution to a cumulative impact may be considered less than significant if it is 

implementing a plan or program designed to avoid the cumulative impact (State CEQA Guidelines 

Section 15064[h]) or if it will implement or fund its fair share of a mitigation measure designed to 

alleviate the cumulative impact (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15130[a]). 

Under CEQA, the discussion of cumulative impacts should reflect the severity of the impacts and their 

likelihood of occurrence, but the discussion may be less detailed than the analysis of the project’s 

individual effects. The discussion should be guided by the standards of practicality and 

reasonableness and should focus on the cumulative impact to which the identified other projects 

contribute, rather than the attributes of the other projects that do not contribute to the cumulative 

impact (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15130[b]). 

As further defined under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b), the following elements are 

necessary in an adequate discussion of significant cumulative impacts: 

(1) Either: 

(A) A list of past, present, future, and probably future projects producing related or cumulative 

impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency, or 

(B) A summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document, or 

in a prior environmental document which has been adopted or certified, which described or 

evaluated regional or areawide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact. Any such planning 

document shall be referenced and made available to the public at a location specified by the lead 

agency. 

(2) When utilizing a list, factors to consider when determining whether to include a related project should 

include the nature of each environmental resource being examined, the location of the project and its 

type. 

(3) Lead agencies should define a geographic scope of the area affected by the cumulative effect and 

provide a reasonable explanation for the geographic limitation used. 

(4) A summary of the expected environmental effects to be produced by those projects with specific 

reference to additional information stating where that information is available; and 

(5) A reasonable analysis of the cumulative impacts of the relevant projects. An EIR shall examine 

reasonable, feasible options for mitigating or avoiding the project’s contribution to any significant 

cumulative effects. 

Both CEQA and NEPA allow the scope of a cumulative impact analysis to be limited through the use 

of tiering (40 CFR 1508.28, State CEQA Guidelines 15130). Tiering can be used when cumulative 

impacts have been addressed adequately in a previous document certified for a programmatic plan 

and the current project is consistent with the plan. The statewide program EIS/EIR evaluated 

cumulative impacts using a list of major projects for consideration in the cumulative impact analysis. 

Although the statewide program EIS/EIR analysis helped identify cumulative projects for this project, 

the cumulative analysis contained herein is not tiered off the previous statewide document because it 

is also programmatic and relates just to the Bay Area to Central Valley study area. This section 

includes an analysis of cumulative impacts resulting from transportation, land use, redevelopment, 

and other projects that have the potential to affect similar resources in the vicinity of the proposed 

project. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.17 Cumulative Impacts 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.17-3

B. METHODS OF EVALUATION OF IMPACTS 

Because of the broad regional nature of the proposed HST project and the programmatic nature of 

this document, the cumulative impact analysis uses both the list and projections approach to evaluate 

potential cumulative impacts of the project. The discussion below identifies the methods employed to 

identify the cumulative scenario. 

The cumulative projects list incorporates reasonably foreseeable, relevant projects and focuses on 

those that, when combined with the proposed HST Network Alternatives, could contribute to 

cumulative impacts. Projects considered in the cumulative impacts analysis were identified through 

(1) telephone conversations with respective city planners and engineers and (2) review of projects 

identified under applicable Bay Area and Central Valley regional transportation improvement plans 

(RTIP) as part of the State Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP). Based on information provided 

by the local jurisdictions and the STIP, the cumulative projects list was prepared; the list identifies 

projects in the same geographic area as the proposed HST project, including projects for which 

development is underway, for which applications have been filed, or that have recently been 

approved but not yet constructed. The following criteria were used to narrow the list of projects 

considered in the analysis: 

• Projects that are under active consideration. 

• Projects that have recently completed or are in some active stage of completing project-level 

environmental documentation. 

• Projects that would be completed or operational within the timeframe being considered for the 

HST project and in the same vicinity. 

• Projects in proximity and of a size/scale that, in combination with the HST Network Alternatives, 

have the potential to affect the same resources. 

To consider the cumulative scenario relative to planned development not identified under the 

cumulative projects list, projections for population, employment, and urbanization were used. 

In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15130[b]), the analysis of cumulative effects is 

qualitative. Both cumulative impacts associated with future projects and future regional growth are 

identified. The cumulative projects are discussed in detail in Appendix 3.17-A, and growth 

inducement and indirect effects from growth are described in Chapter 5, “Economic Growth and 

Related Impacts.” 

3.17.3 Cumulative Projects and Growth Forecasts 

A. CUMULATIVE PROJECTS LIST 

The HST Network Alternatives represent different ways to implement the HST system between the 

Bay Area and Central Valley along combinations of HST Alignment Alternatives and station location 

options (refer to Chapter 7, “High-Speed Train Network and Alignment Alternatives Comparisons”). 

The HST system would continue outside the study area to the major metropolitan areas in the state, 

as described in the statewide program EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA November 2005). The network 

alternatives are grouped into three route options: Altamont Pass, Pacheco Pass, and Pacheco Pass 

with Altamont Pass (local service). The following route options contain 21 network alternatives: 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.17 Cumulative Impacts 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.17-4

Altamont Pass 

Network Alternatives 

Pacheco Pass 

Network Alternatives 

Pacheco Pass with Altamont Pass 

(local service) 

Network Alternatives 

• San Francisco & San Jose 

Termini 

• San Francisco & San Jose 

Termini 

• San Francisco & San Jose Termini 

• Oakland & San Jose Termini • Oakland & San Jose Termini • Oakland & San Jose Termini 

• San Francisco, Oakland & San 

Jose Termini 

• San Francisco, Oakland, & 

San Jose Termini 

• San Francisco, Oakland, & San 

Jose Termini (without Dumbarton 

Bridge) 

• San Jose Terminus • San Jose Terminus • San Jose Terminus 

• San Francisco Terminus • San Jose, San Francisco & 

Oakland—via Transbay Tube 

• Oakland Terminus • San Jose, Oakland & San 

Francisco—via Transbay Tube 

• Union City Terminus 

• San Francisco & San Jose—

via San Francisco Peninsula 

 

• San Francisco, San Jose, 

Oakland—no Bay Crossing 

 

• Oakland & San Francisco—via 

Transbay Tube 

 

• San Jose, Oakland, & San 

Francisco—via Transbay Tube 

 

The cumulative projects included in this analysis are those that are either close to the HST Network 

Alternatives or of a size/scale that could affect regional resources. One of the major projects 

currently underway is the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Rail Plan (Plan) being prepared by the 

MTC, BART, Caltrain, and the Authority. The Regional Rail Plan will look at improvements and 

extensions of railroad, rapid transit, and high-speed rail services for the near term (5–10 years), 

intermediate term (10–25 years), and long term (beyond 25 years). Given the close coordination 

between the two projects, their similar nature, and in some cases the same rights-of-way and 

stations, the Plan is discussed below. Other cumulative projects are discussed in detail in Appendix 

3.17-A. This information represents the most up-to-date and accurate information available as of the 

date of publication of this document. 

Table 3.17-1 summarizes the locations of the cumulative projects relative to the HST Network 

Alternatives. The locations of the cumulative projects in relation to the HST Network Alternatives are 

also illustrated in Figure 3.17-1. 

Regional Rail Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area 

The MTC, BART, Caltrain, and the Authority, along with a coalition of rail passenger and freight 

operators, prepared the Regional Rail Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area per the specifications of 

Regional Measure 2 (RM2), approved in 2004. RM2 specified and provided funding for the 

preparation of a comprehensive master plan for Bay Area rail (MTC 2007). The Plan completed the 

unfinished work of the 1957 Rail Plan and addressed new opportunities. The Plan also established a 

long-range vision to create a Bay Area rail network that addresses the anticipated growth in 

transportation demand and meets that demand. The Plan examined ways to incorporate expanded 

passenger train services into existing rail systems, improve connections to other trains and transit, 

expand the regional rapid transit network, increase rail capacity, coordinate rail investment around 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 3.17-1. Cumulative Projects Associated with HST Network Alternatives 

Cumulative Project Code Cumulative Project 

Altamont Pass Network Alternatives Pac

San Francisco & San Jose 

Termini 

Oakland & San Jose Termini 

San Francisco, Oakland & 

San Jose Termini 

San Jose Terminus 

 San Francisco Terminus 

Oakland Terminus 

Union City Terminus 

San Francisco & San Jose 

- via SF Peninsula 

 San Francisco, San Jose, 

Oakland – no Bay Crossing 

Oakland & San Francisco – 

via Transbay Tube 

San Jose, Oakland, & San 

Francisco via Transbay Tube 

San Francisco & San Jose 

AA San Francisco Bay Area Regional Rail Plan X X X X X X X X X X X X 

A South Hayward BART/Mission Blvd. Concept Design Plan X X X X X X B Hayward Cannery Area Development Plan X X X X X X 

C Avenue 64 Apartments Project X X X X X X 

D Bay Street Site B X X X X X X 

E Christie Park Towers X X X X X X 

F Redevelopment of Amtrak Station in Emeryville X X X X X X 

G Marketplace Expansion Project X X X X X X 

H Powell Undercrossing Project X X X X X X 

I Inter-Modal Station Passenger Rail Project X X X X X X X 

J UPRR Infrastructure Improvements - Madera X X X X X X X X X X X X 

K Proposed Retail Center X X X X X X X X X X X X 

L Proposed Retail Center (2) X X X X X X X X X X X X 

M State Route 99/233 Interchange X X X X X X X X X X X X 

O Chowchilla Other Projects X X X X X X X X X X X X 

P El Rancho San Benito X 

Q Transbay Program-Transbay Transit Center X X X X X X X X 

R Redevelopment Plan for the Transbay Redevelopment 

Project Area 

X X X X X X X X 

S Visitacion Valley/Schlage Lock Master Plan X X X X X X 

T Redwood City Downtown Precise Plan X X X X X X X X X X X X 

U Millbrae Station Area Specific Plan X X X X X X X X X X X X 

V San Carlos X X X X X X X X X X X X 

W San Bruno X X X X X X X X X X X X 

X Central Core Redevelopment Project X X X X X X X X X X X X 

Y Salida Community Plan X X X X X X X X X X X 

Z Modesto Redevelopment Area Master Plan X X X X X X X X X X X 

1 Modesto Condominium Complex X X X X X X X X X X X 2 Turlock Northwest Triangle Specific Plan X X X X X X X X X X X 3 Turlock Southeast Area Feasibility Study X X X X X X X X X X X 4 UC Merced X X X X X X X X X X X X 5 Campus Expressway X X X X X X X X X X X X 6 Capitol Corridor South Hayward Rail Improvements X X X X X X 7 Merced County University Community Plan X X X X X X X X X X X X 
Table 3.17-1. Continued 

Cumulative Project Code Cumulative Project 

Altamont Pass Network Alternatives Pac

San Francisco & San Jose 

Termini 

Oakland & San Jose Termini 

San Francisco, Oakland & 

San Jose Termini 

San Jose Terminus 

 San Francisco Terminus 

Oakland Terminus 

Union City Terminus 

San Francisco & San Jose 

- via SF Peninsula 

 San Francisco, San Jose, 

Oakland – no Bay Crossing 

Oakland & San Francisco – 

via Transbay Tube 

San Jose, Oakland, & San 

Francisco via Transbay Tube 

San Francisco & San Jose 

STP-1 Union City Intermodal Station X X X X X X X STP-2 Emeryville Intermodal Transfer Station Parking X X X X X X STP-3 Madera Gateway & UPRR Bike/Pedestrian UC X X X X X X X X X X X X STP-4 Caltrans Madera Amtrak Station Relocation X X X X X X X X X X X X STP-5 4th Street Widening, City of Madera X X X X X X X X X X X X STP-6 

Robertson Boulevard Improvements (Palm Parkway to 15th Street), Chowchilla 

X X X X X X X X X X X X 

STP-7 Caltrain Downtown Extension to Transbay Transit Center X X X X X X STP-8 

BART Seismic Retrofit (Embarcadero, 16th St, SF station platforms) 

X X X X X X 

STP-9 

US 101 Aux Lanes from 3rd Avenue San mateo to Millbrae Avenue, Millbrae 

X X X X X X 

STP-10 Capitol Corridor-San Jose-Santa Clara Fourth Main X X X X X X X X STP-11 Sunnyvale - Borregas Avenue Bike/pedestrian Bridges X X X STP-12 Passing Lanes - Near Gilroy (State Route 152 

Expressway) 

 X 

STP-13 Truck Climbing Lanes - Near Gilroy (State Route 152 

Expressway) 

 X 

STP-14 State Route 152/SR-156 Interchange Improvements X STP-15 Sunol Grade Southbound HOV Lane Phase 3 X X X X X X STP-16 Tilton and Poplar Grade Separations in San Mateo X X X X X X STP-17 US 101/Willow Road Interchange Reconstruction X X X X X X STP-18 US 101 Auxiliary Lanes – Santa Clara Co. Line to San 

Mateo County 

 X X X 

STP-19 Stockton ACE Northwest Track Connection X X X X X X X X X X X X STP-20 Tracy Downtown Multimodal Station X STP-21 Lathrop Road Grade Separation with UPRR X STP-22 San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission – Stockton 

Southern Pacific Depot Restoration 

X X X X X X X X X X X X 

STP-23 BART Oakland Airport Connector X X X X X X STP-24 Virginia Corridor Rails to Trails in Modesto X X X X X X X X X X X X STP-25 State Route 132 Expressway X X X X X X X X X X X X STP-26 State Route 132 East Infill Project X X X X X X X X X X X X STP-27 State Route 152 Los Banos Bypass Project X 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.17 Cumulative Impacts 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.17-5

transit-friendly communities and businesses, and identify functional and institutional consolidation 

opportunities. The plan also included a detailed analysis of potential high-speed rail routes between 

the Bay Area and the Central Valley that are consistent with the HST Network Alternatives in this 

environmental document. As noted above, the Plan looked at improvements for the near term, 

intermediate term, and long term. The Plan's network and services are intended to: 

• Address the combined challenges of moving people and goods. 

• Link people with commercial, employment, and residential centers. 

• Expand capacity for goods movements to support the regional economy. 

• Serve as the backbone of an integrated regional transit network with seamless connections at 

key transit hubs to local transit services. 

• Accommodate development of statewide high-speed rail and enable operation of regional 

services along high-speed lines, and vice-versa. 

• Include policies and incentives to encourage local governments to create well-designed, walkable 

communities with a mix of services near transit. 

• Explore a governance structure that can develop regional system improvements and deliver 

coordinated, customer-oriented services. 

Core Elements 

There are five core elements of the Plan: 

• BART. 

• Railroad-based regional passenger services, e.g., Capitol Corridor, Caltrain, ACE, etc. 

• High-Speed Rail. 

• Accommodation of increased rail freight movements attributable to economic growth. 

• Long-term land use, including the impact of “smart growth” policies. 

Following full technical analysis of alternatives, the study will designate the most promising 

systemwide alternatives, both for scenarios without high-speed rail and for scenarios that include 

high-speed rail from either the east (Altamont Pass) or south (Pacheco Pass). 

Evaluation of systemwide alternatives will consider travel performance, cost, and impacts for two 

horizon years (2030 and 2040/50). Corridor-level evaluation and phasing considerations will 

distinguish the Year 2030 plan from the Year 2050 plan; the Year 2030 plan would be developed 

from the Resolution 3434 network.2

 The Plan base case or No Project Alternative includes the existing 

financially constrained MTC RTP and the ten rail extensions (as well as service improvements to ACE, 

Caltrain, and the Capitol Corridor) identified in MTC Resolution 3434. The ten rail extensions 

identified in MTC’s Resolution 3434 are: 

1. BART/East Contra Costa Rail (eBART) 

2. ACE Increased Services 

3. BART/I-580 Rail Right-of-Way Preservation 

4. Dumbarton Bridge Rail Service 

5. BART/Fremont–Warm Springs to San Jose Extension 

 

2

 For more information please see the MTC website at: www.mtc.ca.gov 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.17 Cumulative Impacts 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.17-6

6. Caltrain/Rapid Rail/Electrification & Extension to Downtown San Francisco/Transbay Transit 

Center 

7. Caltrain Express Service 

8. SMART (Sonoma-Marin Rail) 

9. Capitol Corridor/Increased Services 

10. BART/Oakland Airport Connector 

Themes and Alternatives 

Different themes for each of the five major Plan elements are explored in the Plan and systemwide 

alternatives: 

High-Speed Rail—Regional Rail Overlay 

The study of high-speed rail in the Plan is consistent with the HST Network Alternatives described in 

this Draft Program EIR/EIS. As the HST system involves major infrastructure investment, the Plan 

identified and evaluated options for providing overlay services (use of the HST infrastructure for 

regional rail service with additional investments in facilities and compatible rolling stock). 

 

Regional overlay operations on HST lines could provide service to additional local stations along the 

HST lines. Such local stops typically would be developed as four-track sections with a pair of outside 

platforms for regional trains and two express tracks (no platforms) in the center. The extent of the 

four-track sections would depend on the prevailing speed of the line for statewide service as well as 

the spacing and location of the local stops. The regional overlay services would be operated with 

compatible equipment, but the average speeds and overall travel times would be greater than the 

HST because of the additional stops. As additional investment would be necessary to provide the 

infrastructure for such regional overlay services, these additional regional services need to be 

evaluated for cost-effectiveness. 

BART 

The following three themes are considered for expansion of BART: 

1. BART is extended and expanded beyond the Resolution 3434 base case to become a system 

providing regional service throughout the Bay Area counties similar to the original BART plan. 

2. BART is not extended, but infill stations are constructed and service is concentrated to provide 

mass transit service in dense areas with express service and/or skip-stop service being used to 

provide adequate travel times for longer length trips. 

3. The BART system remains largely as is with improvements focused on core capacity needs; 

alternative technologies are used to extend coverage except where short extensions of the BART 

technology would provide the most beneficial solution. 

Railroad-Based Passenger Services 

Different levels of improvement to passenger rail services along existing conventional rail lines are 

explored. At the highest level of improvement, infrastructure would be similar to the HST 

infrastructure. With HST implementation, overlay service in the HST corridors would substitute for the 

railroad-based passenger service. High, low, and hybrid themes are explored for passenger rail 

services: 

1. High: existing conventional rail lines are upgraded ultimately to provide 115 mph (185 kph) 

service operating throughout the region on separate electrified grade-separated trackage along 

principal line segments; passenger service is withdrawn from existing freight tracks along 

principal lines, thereby improving capacity for goods movement. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.17 Cumulative Impacts 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.17-7

2. Low: appropriate capacity and operational improvements, including signaling, passing tracks 

and/or multi-tracking and route alignments, are constructed along shared lines to accommodate 

the projected increases in combined passenger and freight demand in shared freight/passenger 

corridors using FRA-compliant equipment with higher speeds. With HST implementation, the HST 

would be on separate trackage without an overlay service. 

3. Hybrid: a combined strategy is pursued in which an appropriate vehicle technology and 

infrastructure solution is selected on a corridor-by-corridor basis, considering adjacent corridors 

and other systems (e.g., BART and the HST) so that a consistent, workable systemwide plan 

results. 

Freight 

Different scenarios for freight movements are considered including maintaining existing practices with 

some improvements to accommodate traffic growth. A second scenario considers a coordinated and 

optimized operation of freight and passenger trains with infrastructure improvements. A third 

scenario considers consolidating portions of the regional rail network under public ownership and 

controlling from a consolidated passenger–freight dispatch center with major infrastructure 

improvements and rerouting of freight traffic. 

 

Land Use 

The Plan considers the linkage between land use and transportation in a framework for Plan 

implementation and explores three significantly different development patterns: 

1. Urban Infill “Core” Development—Concentration of growth in existing urban areas by focusing 

growth on vacant or underutilized lands. 

2. Urban-Suburban “Hub and Spoke” Development—Combination of urban infill and continued 

suburbanization along spokes of residential-intensive communities surrounding the inner Bay 

Area. 

3. Regional “Web” Development—Growth of outlying areas serving clusters of employment and 

housing tied to local industry geography. 

Principal Corridors 

The Plan study area was divided into geographically distinct corridors connecting major population 

centers that also reflect the logic of rail infrastructure. Within the overall Plan study area bounded by 

Cloverdale and Auburn to the northwest and northeast and by Monterey and Merced to the 

southwest and southeast are 12 distinct transportation corridors (Figure 3.17-2): 

1. BART System (all lines) 

2. US 101 North Corridor (Marin – Sonoma) 

3. North Bay Corridor (Marin – Sonoma) 

4. I-80 Corridor (Auburn – Oakland) 

5. East Bay Corridor (Oakland – San Jose) 

6. Transbay Corridor (San Francisco – Oakland) 

7. Peninsula Corridor (San Francisco – San Jose) 

8. South Counties Corridor (Santa Cruz , Monterey, San Benito) 

9. Dumbarton Corridor (Redwood City – Union City) 

10. I-680 & Tri-Valley Corridor (Contra Costa & Southern Alameda) 

11. Central Valley Corridor (Sacramento – Merced) 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.17 Cumulative Impacts 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.17-8

12. Grade Crossings and Grade Separations (all lines) 

San Francisco Bay Area Regional Rail Plan Conclusions 

This Regional Rail Plan Revised Draft Report was prepared in response to input received from the 

public. In August 2007, a series of regional rail workshops were held to solicit input on a Draft 

Summary Report of the Regional Rail Plan, which was first presented and reviewed by a steering 

committee in July 2007. A final report of the Regional Rail Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area was 

prepared and was adopted by MTC in September 2007. The final report includes a “Regional Rail 

Vision” and has three scenario outcomes: 1) without High-Speed Rail; 2) with High-Speed Rail via 

Altamont Pass; and 3) with High-Speed Rail via Pacheco Pass. For each of these three outcomes, 

improvements were recommended for the 12 corridors. 

Regional Rail Vision 

The executive summary of the final Regional Rail Plan presents the Regional Rail Vision as follows 

(pg ES-3): 

• Ring the Bay with Rail: A long-term vision of many in the region is to ring the Bay, connecting the 

three major Bay Area cities (San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose), with fast, frequent and 

integrated passenger rail network. 

• The Right Technology Should Be Used With the Right Corridor: A broad range of rail 

technologies, including BART and conventional passenger trains like Amtrak, are considered in 

this plan. Emerging technologies such as non-Federal Railroad Administration compliant Electric 

Multiple Unit (EMU) trains are also explored. 

• The BART & Caltrain Systems Are the Backbone: The BART and Caltrain systems serve as the 

backbone of the regional rail network and it is clear there will be capacity constraints and 

renovation needs for the existing systems. This reinvestment should be a top regional priority 

over the next few decades. 

• The BART System’s Outward Expansion Is Nearly Complete: While BART will always remain at 

the core of the region’s rail system, its outward expansion potential is limited. Once the 

extension to San Jose is completed, and the existing lines are brought to logical terminals in 

Livermore, Santa Clara, and East Contra Costa County, no additional outward extensions of the 

BART technology are contemplated. Higher-speed express trains would better serve outlying 

suburban markets. Instead, BART will evolve toward a higher-frequency, highly productive metro 

system. 

• The Bay Area Needs a Regional Rail Network: As the BART system becomes more of a highfrequency, close stop spacing urban subway system, it needs to be complemented with a larger 

regional express network serving longer-distance trips. These trains would run largely on 

existing tracks, some shared with freight and others in their own rights-of-way with specialized 

signaling and dispatch systems. 

• Rail Infrastructure Must Be Expanded to Accommodate Growth in Passenger and Freight Traffic: 

To allow the region’s economy to continue growing while meeting increased passenger needs, 

the freight and passenger rail systems must be increasingly accommodated. Certain freight 

corridors require additional mainline tracks to support high-frequency freight and passenger 

services. 

• High-Speed Rail Provides Opportunities to Enhance and Accelerate Regional Rail Improvements: 

High-speed rail complements and supports the development of regional rail—a statewide highspeed train network would enable the operation of fast, frequent regional services along the 

high-speed lines and should provide additional and accelerated funding where high-speed and 

regional lines are present in the same corridor. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Regional Rail 

Source: Regional Rail Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area, 

September 2007. 

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.17 Cumulative Impacts 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.17-9

Regional Rail without High-Speed Rail 

The Plan for Regional Rail without High-Speed Rail includes: 

• BART: Improve core capacity, implement Resolution 3434 extensions; extend BART to Livermore; 

construct fourth track through Oakland; develop infill stations; increase capacity; and in the 

longer term pursue a second Bay crossing (between San Francisco and Oakland). 

• US 101 North: Implement non-electric SMART project (in the early years with 30-minute 

headways). 

• North Bay: Corridor preservation and consideration of standard non-electric rail services. 

• I-80 & East Bay: Expand East Bay non-electric standard rail network from San Jose to 

Sacramento to three tracks with some four-track sections. 

• Transbay: Provide near-term investments in BART Core Capacity (higher-capacity cars, improved 

signaling, etc.); in the long term, provide new transbay tube and San Francisco BART Line paired 

with rail tunnel. 

• South Counties: Extend non-electric conventional rail service to Salinas, with further expansion to 

provide rail connections to Monterey and Santa Cruz. 

• Peninsula: Expand Caltrain to three or four tracks and operate with lightweight electric multipleunit equipment. 

• Dumbarton: In the near term, implement service between Union City and Redwood City with 

standard railroad equipment; in the long term, develop separate passenger-only trackage from 

Redwood City to Union City to support lightweight equipment compatible with Caltrain Peninsula 

operations. 

• Tri-Valley/I680: Add trackage to support improved non-electric conventional passenger service 

along the ACE rail corridor and to accommodate regional freight trains for approximate 100-

minute operating time between Stockton and San Jose. Develop regional bus options in the 

I-680 corridor. 

• Central Valley: Provide a non-electric conventional regional corridor service between Sacramento 

and Merced over the long term, interlined with ACE services and complimenting the San Joaquin 

long haul trains. 

The estimated total capital cost of the Regional Rail Plan is about $45 billion (2006 dollars). Funding 

for Regional Rail investments beyond current Resolution 3434 commitments will likely come from 

multiple sources, including federal, state, regional, local, and public/private partnerships, and other 

sources. 

Regional Rail with High-Speed Rail 

The Plan analysis identified numerous opportunities to operate regional “overlay” services across 

high-speed lines within northern California. Implementation of these services would require provision 

of four tracks at the regional stations as well as approaching and departing the regional stations. 

Regardless of which Altamont or Pacheco alignment alternatives would be developed, an initial phase 

of investment would be on the San Francisco Peninsula between San Jose and San Francisco to make 

the Caltrain corridor “high-speed rail ready” for operation as a grade-separated, higher speed 

alignment suitable for use of electric, multiple-unit equipment. The Plan with HST is very similar to 

the Plan without HST, except that HST would provide a higher level of service and additional and 

accelerated funding where HST and regional rail lines are in the same corridor. 

The Plan concluded that both the Altamont Pass and Pacheco Pass alignments have similar total 

costs, and that to accommodate regional services on HST infrastructure would add about $1 billion. 

The Plan states, “if either Altamont or Pacheco were selected as the sole option, 4-track sections 

would be needed at regional stations as well as approaching and departing regional stops. These 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.17 Cumulative Impacts 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.17-10

four-track sections would be required along the Altamont route between Fremont and Tracy and 

along the Pacheco route between San Jose and Gilroy. By contrast, with an Altamont + Pacheco 

option, two-track section would suffice from San Jose to Gilroy and from Fremont to Tracy.” (page 

ES-17). 

The Plan also concluded that Altamont and Pacheco would have similar regional ridership levels of 

approximately 54 million to 56 million northern California trips in Year 2030 (including both intraregional trips within northern California as well as inter-regional trips to points south of Merced). The 

Plan states, “An Altamont alignment would have higher regional ridership (between points located 

from Merced and north) of 20-million trips in Year 2030 vs. about 16-million trips for a Pacheco 

alignment – by contrast, a Pacheco alignment would have higher ridership between Northern 

California and Southern California (between points located from Fresno and south) of 40-million trips 

in Year 2030 vs. about 34-million trips for an Altamont alignment” (pg ES-17). 

The Plan outcome “with High-Speed Rail via Altamont Pass” presents the opportunity for shared 

infrastructure and shared costs with the statewide HST system in several of the corridors under 

investigation: the Tri-Valley (Altamont Pass), the East Bay, Peninsula, Transbay, and Central Valley. 

The potential number of stations in these corridors and the relatively short length suggest that the 

combined services (HST + Regional Rail Overlay) could require four tracks for passenger services 

throughout much of the HST alignment for this alternative. Even so, the Plan would also include 

improvement in the South County corridor (along US 101 from San Jose to Monterey-Salinas). 

The Plan outcome “with High-Speed Rail via Pacheco Pass” also would present the opportunity for 

shared infrastructure and shared costs with the statewide HST system in several of the corridors 

under investigation: the South County, the East Bay, Peninsula, Transbay, and Central Valley. With 

this Plan alternative, a considerable level of improvement in the “Tri-Valley” corridor (Altamont Pass) 

would also occur.

B. CUMULATIVE GROWTH PROJECTIONS 

California’s population has grown from 20 million to more than 36 million people over the last 30 

years. At the same time, more than 10 million additional jobs have been created in California. As of 

2005, California was estimated to have about 36.1 million people and 20.9 million jobs. Table 3.17-2 

lists Year 2005 population and employment and 2030 projections as well as estimates of 2002 and 

2030 urbanization. Data are presented for major regions in California as well as individual counties in 

the Bay Area to Central Valley region. As expected, the Bay Area counties have a higher total 

population than those in the Central Valley in 2005 and 2030, but the 64% growth rate for the 

Central Valley is more than 33% higher and exceeds the 44% growth rate for the 11-county core 

study area and the state. Employment also is projected to increase substantially by 2030 in both the 

Bay Area and Central Valley counties, exceeding the growth rate for the state. Urbanization is 

projected to increase by 392,000 ac (158,700 ha) by 2030 in the 11-county core study area, with 

68% of this occurring in the Central Valley counties. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 3.17-2 

Population, Employment (2005-2030) and Urbanization (2002-2030) Trends 

County 

Population Employment Urb

2005 

Conditions 

2030 No 

Project 

Growth 

Rate 

2005 

Conditions 

2030 No 

Project 

Growth 

Rate 

Year 2002 

Acres (ha) 

Alameda County 1,451,065 2,038,482 40.5% 953,937 1,247,413 30.8% 141,654 (57,327) Contra Costa County 1,017,644 1,543,053 51.6% 508,854 763,445 50.0% 142,467 (57,656) San Francisco County 741,025 796,208 7.4% 779,357 975,823 25.2% 23,277 (9,420) San Mateo County 701,175 814,065 16.1% 522,830 717,526 37.2% 70,869 (28,681) Santa Clara County 1,705,158 2,152,963 26.3% 1,323,920 1,769,498 33.7% 184,481 (74,659) Study Area—Bay Area 5,616,067 7,344,771 30.8% 4,088,898 5,473,705 33.9% 562,748 (227,744) Fresno County 878,089 1,297,476 47.8% 435,769 589,226 35.2% 96,977 (39,247) Madera County 142,530 219,832 54.2% 56,892 91,364 60.6% 23,255 (9,411) Merced County 242,249 437,880 80.8% 87,365 115,054 31.7% 31,712 (12,834) Sacramento County 1,363,423 2,293,028 68.2% 805,978 1,259,792 56.3% 157,101 (63,579) San Joaquin County 664,796 1,229,757 85.0% 274,155 368,745 34.5% 74,250 (30,049) Stanislaus County 505,492 744,599 47.3% 224,491 316,686 41.1% 55,426 (22,431) Study Area—Central 

Valley 3,796,579 6,222,572 63.9% 1,884,650 2,740,867 45.4% 438,721 (177,550) 

Core Study Area 9,412,646 13,567,343 44.1% 5,973,548 8,214,572 37.4% 1,001,469 (405,295) Statewide Total 36,154,147 48,110,671 33.1% 20,903,134 28,617,864 36.9%

Sources: U.S. Bureau of the Census; MTC/California High-Speed Rail Travel Demand Model; Cambridge Systematics, Inc, 2007 

*Note: Projected increases in urbanized area for San Francisco County are a function of the average densities used to calculate employment acreage. Sin

available in San Francisco County, employment growth will need to be accommodated through densification and infill rather than increases in urbanized a
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.17 Cumulative Impacts 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.17-12

3.17.4 Analysis of Cumulative Impacts 

The following analysis describes the potential range of impacts from the HST Network Alternatives to 

contribute to cumulative impacts related to the environmental topics of Chapter 3 when considering past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. The environmental topics are discussed herein in the 

same order as they appear in Chapter 3. The impacts of growth potentially induced by the proposed 

project are addressed in Chapter 5, “Economic Growth and Related Impacts.” These potential secondary 

impacts were considered in the cumulative impacts analysis. 

A. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION AND TRAVEL CONDITIONS 

California’s intercity travel network consists of three main components: highways, airports, and rail. 

As discussed in Section 3.2, “Travel Conditions,” automobiles and air transportation carry more than 

99% of intercity trips in California. The urban areas of San Francisco and Los Angeles experience 

some of the most severe highway congestion and travel delays in the country. Between 1990 and 

2003, the vehicle miles of travel (VMT) (vehicle kilometers of travel [VKT]) on only the state highway 

system increased by almost 37 billion mi (60 billion km), a 26% increase (California Department of 

Transportation 2007). Between 2005 and 2030, the statewide vehicle miles of travel on all roadways 

is projected to increase by more than 68% to over 550 billion miles (890 billion km) in 2030 

(California Department of Transportation 2006). In addition, California airports generally experience 

the highest average air travel delays in the nation (Hansen et al. 2002). Although the main 

contributors to congestion are local and commuter highway trips and transcontinental and 

international flights (such as in San Francisco), intercity trips compete for the limited capacity on 

overburdened facilities. 

The study area for the cumulative analysis of traffic and circulation was identified to be the study 

region, Bay Area to Central Valley. This included major intercity highways, roadways, passenger 

transportation services, and intersections around stations within 1 mi (1.6 km) of suburban station 

options and 0.25 mi (0.40 km) of downtown station options. 

 No Project Alternative

As described in Chapter 3 (Sections 3.1 and 3.2), the program-level impact analysis of traffic and 

circulation and travel conditions focused on traffic and LOS analysis of intercity highway segments, 

primary highway/roadways accessing proposed HST stations, and primary highway/roadways 

accessing airports and potential impacts on transit, goods movement, and parking at proposed 

stations. Impacts on travel conditions included analysis of travel time, reliability, safety, connectivity, 

sustainable capacity, and passenger cost. Intercity travel in California is forecasted to increase up to 

63% between 2000 and 2030, from 550 million trips to more than 896 million trips. An estimated 

86% of these trips will be made by automobile, as stated in the purpose and need chapter of this 

Program EIR/EIS (Chapter 1). More than 42% of the intercity travel market forecast for 2030 

between the state’s major metropolitan areas and more than 62% of the projected intercity ridership 

of the proposed statewide HST system would have a trip-end (either origin or destination) in the Bay 

Area to Central Valley study area. More than two-thirds of the 18 highway segments analyzed in this 

study would operate at unacceptable conditions (LOS F) under the No Project Alternative. The 

expected increase in the number of autos on the highways by 2030 also would result in significant 

travel delays and congestion under the No Project Alternative, which would have significant potential 

impacts on the state’s economy and quality of life. Under the No Project Alternative, there would be 

adverse effects related to traffic and LOS on intercity highway segments, primary highway/roadways 

accessing proposed HST stations, and primary highway/roadways accessing airports. There would be 

adverse impacts on transit, goods movement, and parking. Therefore, under the No Project 

Alternative, the cumulative impact related to traffic and circulation would be significant when 

considering past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the study area (See 

Section 3.1). 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.17 Cumulative Impacts 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.17-13

HST Network Alternatives

Compared to the No Project Alternative in 2030, the proposed statewide HST system would result in 

a reduction of automobile travel of from 12 to 23 billion miles (19 to 37 billion km) annually, 

depending on network alternative as discussed in Section 3.2, “Travel Conditions.” This outcome 

would benefit intercity highways within the study region and reduce travel delays on the affected 

highways and on surface streets leading to and from intercity highways. Therefore, implementation 

of the HST Network Alternatives would not lead to a considerable contribution to the cumulative 

impact related to highway and airport use but could be a considerable contribution to the cumulative 

impact related to surface streets leading to and from proposed stations. 

Program mitigation strategies, as discussed in Section 3.1, could be developed in consultation with 

state, federal, regional, and local governments and affected transit agencies to improve the flow of 

intercity travel on the primary routes and access to the proposed stations. Regional strategies would 

include coordination with regional transportation planning and intelligent transportation system 

strategies. Local improvements could employ TSM/signal optimization; local spot widening of curves; 

and major intersection improvements. 

B. AIR QUALITY 

As stated in Section 3.3, “Air Quality,” pollution sources in the two air basins directly affected by the 

proposed project account for about 30% of the total statewide criteria pollutant emissions. Overall, 

emissions in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin and San Joaquin Valley Air Basin have been 

declining for the past 20 years despite population growth and increases in vehicular travel. This 

decline is a result of new controls, rules, and more stringent emissions standards. The one exception 

to improvement has been PM10. PM10 emissions are predicted to increase through 2010 as a result 

of growth in emissions from areawide sources, primarily fugitive dust sources. An additional growing 

environmental concern is global climate change, and the transportation sector is responsible for 

about 40% of California's greenhouse gas emissions, and up to 50% in the Bay Area. 

The study area for the cumulative analysis of air quality was identified to be the San Francisco Bay 

Area Air Basin and San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, as well as the state as a whole. CO2 emissions are 

only calculated on a statewide level. 

No Project Alternative

The program-level impact analysis of air quality described in Section 3.3, “Air Quality,” focused on the 

potential statewide, regional, and localized impacts related to pollutant burdens occurring from 

highway vehicle miles traveled, number of plane operations, number of train movements, and power 

requirements. The analysis of air quality considers emissions of projected regional growth by the 

CARB for eight criteria pollutants (CO, SOx, HC, NOx, O3, PM10, PM2.5, and Pb) in the two air basins 

potentially affected, and therefore includes past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

projects/actions and population growth as part of the No Project Alternative. CO2, the primary 

greenhouse gas, is projected to increase 38% statewide from existing conditions. As noted above, 

the analysis is structured to estimate the potential impacts on air quality on the local and regional 

levels in two air basins directly affected by the project alternatives as well as statewide. Under the No 

Project Alternative, the cumulative impact related to air quality would be significant when considering 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the study area (See Section 3.3). 

HST Network Alternatives

It is estimated that the proposed HST Network Alternatives would be able to accommodate between 

88 and 117 million people annually for intercity trips, as discussed in Section 3.2, “Travel Conditions.” 

Intercity passengers using the HST system otherwise would use the roadways and airports, and the 

result is a potential reduction of automobile travel from 22 to 32 billion miles (36 to 52 billion km) 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.17 Cumulative Impacts 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.17-14

annually, and a reduction in emissions because of the reduced number of flights (19.3 to 20.1 million 

air trips would shift to HST annually, as discussed in Section 3.3). Overall, pollutants would decrease 

statewide compared to the No Project Alternative: CO 5.2% to 5.3%, PM10 5.4% to 5.5%, PM2.5

5.1% to 5.6%, NOX 4.2%, and total organic gases 5.2% to 5.3%. Therefore, the HST Network 

Alternatives would result in an air quality benefit. The benefit could increase if the HST ridership 

increased beyond the levels assumed in this document. However, as described in Section 3.3, there 

may be localized air quality impacts from the HST Network Alternatives. 

The HST Network Alternatives would also reduce greenhouse gas emissions (CO2) statewide by 0.9% 

to 1.4%. The proposed HST system would result in beneficial impacts related to greenhouse gases 

and global climate change. Any additional carbon entering the atmosphere, whether by emissions 

from the project itself or removal of carbon sequestering plants (included agricultural crops), would 

be more than offset by the beneficial reduction of carbon resulting from the project due to a 

reduction in automobile vehicle miles traveled (mobile sources) and reduction in the number of 

airplane trips. 

The potential local air quality impacts of the HST Network Alternatives, in combination with the air 

quality impacts of other projects identified for this cumulative impact analysis (Appendix 3.17-A) and 

those projects considered in the state implementation plan for air quality, could contribute 

considerably to cumulative air quality impacts in the two air basins in the study area. Local adverse 

air quality impacts related to traffic could occur near HST stations. Program-level analysis reviews the 

potential statewide air quality impacts that would support determination of conformity, as discussed 

in Section 3.3. At the project level, mitigation strategies to address localized impacts could consider 

increasing emission controls from power plants supplying power for the HST Network Alternatives; 

designing the system to use energy efficient, state-of-the-art equipment; promoting increased use of 

public transit, alternative fueled vehicles, and parking for carpools, bicycles, and other alternative 

transportation methods; alleviating traffic congestion around passenger station areas; and minimizing 

construction air emissions. 

C. NOISE AND VIBRATION 

As noted in Section 3.4, “Noise and Vibration,” the noise environment in the study area along the 

proposed HST alignments and stations generally is dominated by transportation-related sources. The 

ambient noise in the northern portion of the Bay Area to Central Valley region is dominated by motor 

vehicle traffic in densely populated areas and along freeways. Other major contributors include 

Caltrain, Amtrak, and freight rail as well as international airports at San Francisco, Oakland, and San 

Jose. In the more rural areas of the region, the ambient noise is lower because it is more removed 

from transportation noise sources. 

The study area for the cumulative analysis of noise and vibration was identified to be within 1,000 ft 

(305 m) of the HST Network Alternatives. 

No Project Alternative

Noise and vibration impacts, particularly in growing urban areas and along highway corridors, will 

continue to increase as population grows and use of highways and airports increases. Therefore, 

under the No Project Alternative the cumulative impact related to noise and vibration would be 

significant when considering past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the study 

area (See Section 3.4). 

HST Network Alternatives

Implementation of the proposed HST Network Alternatives potentially could result in high noise 

impacts for up to approximately 20 mi (32.4 km) of alignment, depending on network alternative. 

These potential impacts, when combined with the potential noise impacts of other highway, roadway, 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.17 Cumulative Impacts 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.17-15

and transit expansion projects in the Bay Area to Central Valley region, could locally contribute 

potential cumulative noise impacts during construction and operation. The same is true for vibration 

impacts where the network alternatives would potentially result in high vibration impacts for up to 

approximately 52 mi (84.3 km) of alignment. 

The potential impacts of the HST Network Alternatives could be a considerable contribution to 

cumulative noise and vibration impacts. Program-level mitigation of noise and vibration impacts, as 

discussed in Section 3.4, “Noise and Vibration,” relates to design practices emphasizing the use of 

tunnels or trenches; use of electric-powered trains, higher quality track interface, and smaller lighter 

and more aerodynamic trainsets; and grade separations from roadways. At the project level, 

mitigation strategies to address localized noise and vibration impacts should include treatments for 

insulation of buildings affected by noise and vibration; sound barrier walls within the right-of-way; 

track treatments to minimize train vibrations; and construction mitigation (See Section 3.4). 

D. ENERGY 

As noted in Section 3.5, “Energy,” California is the tenth-largest worldwide energy consumer and is 

ranked second in consumption in the United States, behind Texas. The study area for the cumulative 

analysis of energy was identified to be the state of California. Of the overall energy consumed in the 

state, the transportation sector represents the largest portion at 46%. Between 2005 and 2030, the 

statewide vehicle miles of travel on all roadways are projected to increase by more than 68%, with 

fuel consumption increasing by more than 61% (California Department of Transportation 2006). 

According to the CEC, total statewide electricity consumption grew from 228,038 GWh in 1990 to 

272,000 GWh in 2005, approximately 19%. The upward electricity consumption trend throughout the 

state is anticipated to continue because of growth (California Energy Commission 2006a). 

No Project Alternative

As discussed in Section 3.5, the No Project Alternative assumes continued dependence on 

automobiles and air travel for intercity trips in the state. Compared to 2000, this increase in travel 

would result in an increase in annual energy consumption by an estimated 56 to 63 million barrels of 

oil per year, depending on low-end or high-end ridership forecasts. Therefore, under the No Project 

Alternative, the cumulative impact related to energy consumption would be significant when 

considering past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the study area (See Section 

3.5). 

HST Network Alternatives

The statewide HST system would reduce energy consumption in 2030 by an estimated 22 million 

barrels of oil annually, depending on HST Network Alterative (a 5% savings compared to the 

No Project Alternative). This conservative estimate is based on use of average size trains that could 

be expanded to carry more passengers; the potential energy benefits could be substantially higher if 

train capacity and ridership were increased. The proposed statewide HST system, regardless of 

network alternative, would have a beneficial effect on energy consumption in the state and, 

therefore, would not contribute to cumulative energy impacts. 

The statewide HST system would represent a small percentage of generating and transmission 

capacity required to satisfy projected overall demand in 2030. The electricity requirement of the HST 

system would be about 794 MW, depending on overall ridership, during peak electricity demand 

periods in 2030. This represents approximately 0.96% of the projected statewide electricity demand 

in 2030. The proposed HST system is anticipated to reduce energy consumption overall. Any localized 

electricity impacts would be avoided through proper planning and design of power distribution 

systems and their relationship with the overall power grid. Therefore, the statewide HST system’s 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.17 Cumulative Impacts 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.17-16

contribution to cumulative electricity demand would be less than significant when considering past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. 

Construction-related energy consumption of the statewide HST system would result in a one-time, 

nonrecoverable energy cost of 22 million barrels of oil spaced over a number of years. Because of the 

more energy-efficient mode of travel provided by the HST, the energy consumed for construction 

would be recovered by the energy savings within about one year as noted in Section 3.5, “Energy.” 

Construction of the HST system potentially would represent a significant use of nonrenewable 

resources. Mitigation strategies to address construction energy use include implementation of a 

construction energy conservation plan. Therefore, the statewide HST system would result in a 

considerable contribution to a significant cumulative energy impact when considering past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the study area (See Section 3.5). 

E. ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AND ELECTROMAGNETIC INTERFERENCE 

As described in Section 3.6, EMFs exist in the environment both naturally and as a result of human 

activities. The study area for the cumulative analysis of EMF and EMI was identified to be within 

1,000 ft (305 m) of the right-of-way of the HST Network Alternatives. 

No Project Alternative

By Year 2030, EMFs along existing roadways and railroad rights-of-way probably would be affected 

by technological developments and by increases in total energy consumption. For example, general 

EMF levels along highways may be cumulatively increased by advanced automotive technologies such 

as collision avoidance systems and automatic vehicle guidance systems, if such technologies are 

implemented by 2030, and increased reliance on electrically powered automobiles. Improvements to 

airports may also increase environmental EMFs because of increased use of radar, radio 

communications, and instrument landing systems. Based on available information, these changes are 

not likely to cause significant changes in EMF levels, increased human exposures to EMFs, or EMI in 

the environment. Therefore, under the No Project Alternative there would be no cumulative impact 

related to EMFs or EMIs when considering past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects 

in the study area. 

HST Network Alternatives

The HST Network Alternatives would traverse a range of geographic and land use typologies and 

could result in potential EMF exposure in urban, suburban, rural, agricultural, and industrial areas. 

The various components of the HST infrastructure and the trains themselves would be sources of 

EMFs at both ELF and RF. It is likely that some additional potential for human exposure to EMFs and 

EMI would occur with the HST Network Alternatives in combination with other proposed projects 

(potential activities include transmission lines and other electric rail systems); however, although the 

HST Network Alternatives could cause direct and indirect EMF and EMI impacts, there would not be a 

considerable contribution to EMF and EMI levels because mitigation included in project-level analysis 

would include design choices (tunnel, elevated track, physical barriers between track and receptor, or 

facility site selection) and through shielding to avoid or minimize potential EMF and EMI impacts.

F. LAND USE AND PLANNING, COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS, PROPERTY, AND 

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

Even though the population in the San Joaquin Valley grew from 200,000 to 3 million in the 20th 

century, it underwent much less of a transformation than did the Bay Area. Population growth in the 

northern San Joaquin Valley was 63% between 1980 and 2000. In this same period the urban to 

rural share went from 78% urban and 22% rural to 89% urban and 11% rural (Teitz et al. 2005). 

Since 1990 the rate of land conversion has increased by 21% in the northern San Joaquin Valley 

(Great Valley Center 2006). 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.17 Cumulative Impacts 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.17-17

With a population of approximately 7 million in the year 2000, the San Francisco Bay Area (ninecounty area) is the fifth most populous metropolitan area in the United States. Only about 18% of 

the region's approximately 4.8 million ac is developed. Residential uses account for 72% of this 

developed land. From 1960 to 2000, the region’s population has grown by 90%, while jobs increased 

by 200%. The locations of people and jobs have become much more dispersed with both population 

growth and jobs occurring in new urban centers on the edge of the region. Since the 1990s, the Bay 

Area has experienced significant growth, with population increasing by 764,000 and employment by 

548,000 jobs. Development has continued as well, with a 5% increase in developed acres 

(Metropolitan Transportation Commission 2004). 

The study area for the cumulative analysis of land use and planning, communities and 

neighborhoods, property, and environmental justice was identified to be at least 0.25 mi (0.40 km) 

on either side of the HST Network Alternatives. 

No Project Alternative

As described in Section 3.7, the land use and local communities are expected to change between 

2006 and 2030 as a result of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, related to 

population growth and changes in economic activity in the project study area (see also, Chapter 5, 

“Economic Growth and Related Impacts”). It is expected that some changes related to land use 

compatibility, communities and neighborhoods, property, and environmental justice will occur, even 

though it is assumed that reasonably foreseeable future projects would include typical design and 

construction practices to avoid or minimize potential impacts and would be subject to a project-level 

environmental review process to identify potentially significant impacts and to include feasible 

mitigation measures to avoid or substantially reduce potential impacts. Therefore, under the No 

Project Alternative the cumulative impact related to land-use compatibility, communities and 

neighborhoods, property, and environmental justice would be significant when considering past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the study area. 

HST Network Alternatives

The HST Network Alternatives potentially could contribute to cumulative impacts associated with 

community and neighborhood cohesion and property loss, although most alignment options of the 

HST Network Alternatives would be within existing railroad right-of-way or adjacent to transportation 

facilities. Combined with other transit (light rail and commuter rail) and roadway projects considered 

for this cumulative impact analysis, as listed in Appendix 3.17-A, these localized impacts could 

contribute to cumulative community/neighborhood impacts. At some locations of the HST Network 

Alternatives, there would be impacts on adjoining land uses, including residential, parks, commercial 

business areas, and industrial. Environmental Justice impacts also would occur at select locations 

along alignments and at stations. These impacts, in combination with other transit extension and 

roadway projects and when considering past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in 

the study area, could cause a considerable contribution to potential cumulative impacts on various 

property types, neighborhoods, and communities. 

Program-level mitigation of the HST Network Alternatives’ contributions to the land-use compatibility, 

communities and neighborhoods, property, and environmental justice cumulative impacts, as 

discussed in Section 3.7, includes design practices to maximize use of existing rights-of-way and 

incorporating strategies for stations to incorporate transit oriented design, and coordination with 

cities and counties in each region to ensure that project facilities would be consistent with land use 

planning processes and zoning ordinances. 

G. AGRICULTURAL LANDS 

As noted in Section 3.8, the most recent statistics (2004) indicate that California has approximately 

26.7 million ac (10.8 million ha) of land in farms, has approximately 77,000 farms, and produces 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.17 Cumulative Impacts 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.17-18

more than 350 different crop types. Six of the top ten California agricultural counties in 2001 were 

located in the Central Valley (California Department of Food and Agriculture 2005). According to an 

estimate in a May 2001 report by the University of California Agricultural Issues Center, California lost 

approximately 497,000 ac (201,000 ha) of farmland to urbanization in the decade between 1988 and 

1998, a loss rate of approximately 49,700 ac (20,100 ha) per year (Kuminoff et al. 2001). 

The study area for the cumulative analysis of agricultural lands was identified to be the 11 counties 

potentially affected by the project. 

No Project Alternative

As noted in Chapter 5, “Economic Growth and Related Impacts,” farmland conversion to nonagricultural use in the 11-county regional area, it is anticipated that by 2030 under the No Project 

Alternative, the region may have lost nearly 236,000 ac (95,510 ha) of farmland to urban 

development. This amount would represent a reduction of approximately 1% in the state’s 

26.7 million ac (10.8 million hectares) of farmland. Therefore, under the No Project Alternative, the 

cumulative impact related to farmland conversion would be significant when considering past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the study area. 

HST Network Alternatives

Potential direct impacts on farmland from the proposed HST Network Alternatives would vary based 

on the alignment options selected. The ranges of potential impacts would be 420 ac (170 ha) to 

765 ac (309 ha) of prime farmland, 75 ac (30 ha) to 174 ac (70 ha) of unique farmland, 209 ac (84 

ha) to 397 ac (161 ha) of farmland of statewide importance, and 51 ac (21 ha) to 181 ac (73 ha) of 

farmlands of local importance, according to the land designations in the FMMP. The total potential 

impact on agricultural lands throughout the study area would vary between 755 ac (306 ha) and 

1,384 ac (560 ha), depending on the network alternative. Of the nearly 236,000 ac (95,510 ha) 

projected for conversion to nonagricultural use by 2030, the HST Network Alternatives would 

represent less than 1% of additional farmland conversion. However, the potential reduction of 

farmland from the HST Network Alternatives nonetheless could be a considerable contribution to the 

overall potential cumulative impact on agricultural land throughout the study area and the state. 

Program-level mitigation for the HST Network Alternative contributions to the agricultural conversion 

cumulative impacts, as discussed in Section 3.8, includes design practices to avoid agricultural land 

conversion through maximizing use of existing rights-of-way to minimize encroachment on additional 

agricultural lands; using aerial structure or tunnel alignments to allow vehicular and pedestrian traffic 

access across the alignment; and reducing the new right-of-way to 50 ft in constrained areas. 

Mitigation measures also may be applied through project-level environmental review and could 

include securing easements, participating in mitigation banks, increasing permanent protection of 

farmlands at the local planning level, and coordinating with various local, regional, and state agencies 

to support farmland conservation programs. 

H. AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 

Aesthetics and visual resources refer to the natural and human-made features of a landscape that 

characterize its form, line, texture, and color. The character of the existing landscape has changed in 

the Bay Area to Central Valley region over time as a result of land uses, including the changes from a 

natural condition to agriculture, development, and urban growth that have occurred in the past. 

The study area for the cumulative analysis of aesthetics and visual resources was identified to be up 

to 0.25 mi (0.40 km) on each side of the HST Network Alternatives. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.17 Cumulative Impacts 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.17-19

No Project Alternative

The aesthetic and visual quality analysis focused on potential impacts on visual resources (particularly 

scenic resources, areas of historical interest, natural open space areas, and significant ecological 

areas) along the proposed corridors for the HST Network Alternatives including HST alignments and 

station sites, as described in Section 3.9. Therefore, under the No Project Alternative, the cumulative 

impact related to aesthetic and visual resources would be significant when considering past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the study area. 

HST Network Alternatives

The proposed HST Network Alternatives could contribute to both short- and long-term potential 

cumulative impacts on visual resources (particularly scenic resources, areas of historical interest, 

natural open space areas, and significant ecological areas). Construction of the system would have 

short-term potential impacts on visual resources. Construction equipment, staging areas with 

construction materials, signage, and night lighting would be visible from adjacent properties and 

roadways during the construction period. Such disruptions could continue for a period of years, 

potentially a few months to 2 years for most local areas. 

Long-term visual changes would result from the introduction of 146 mi (237 km) to 366 mi (593 km) 

of a new transportation system that would be visible along many major highways and rail corridors 

connecting the Bay Area and Central Valley. The track, catenary, fencing, soundwalls (where 

included), elevated guideway (where included), and trains themselves would introduce a linear 

element into the landscape that could contribute to potential cumulative visual impacts when 

considered with the strong linear element of the existing highway, rail facilities, and transmission 

lines that the HST Network Alternatives would parallel for much of the system. HST lines in new 

corridors either through the Altamont Pass or Pacheco Pass could have significant cumulative effects 

on visual resources. The significance of the visual change would vary by location, depending on the 

sensitivity of the landscape and the compatibility with existing landscape features. Therefore, the HST 

Network Alternatives would result in a considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact on 

aesthetic and visual resources when considering past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

projects in the study area (See Section 3.9). 

Program-level mitigation of the HST Network Alternatives’ contributions to the cumulative impacts on 

aesthetic and visual resources, as discussed in Sections 3.9, includes design practices that will 

incorporate local agency and community input during subsequent project-level environmental review 

in order to develop context sensitive aesthetic designs and treatments for infrastructure. Mitigation 

measures also may be applied through project-level environmental review and could include design 

of facilities that integrate into landscape contexts, reducing potential view blockage, contrast with 

existing landscape settings, and light and shadow effects. 

I. PUBLIC UTILITIES 

As discussed in Section 3.10, “Public Utilities,” electric transmission lines, telecommunications lines, 

natural gas pipelines, and wastewater and water pipelines exist in the project study area, as do fixed 

facilities, such as electrical substations, power stations, and wastewater treatment plants. Service 

providers include both public and private entities. 

The study area for the cumulative analysis of public utilities was identified to be at least 100 ft (30 m) 

on each side of the HST Network Alternatives. 

No Project Alternative

Construction of development projects and linear facilities (e.g., highway expansions, rail extensions, 

pipelines, transmission lines) and other reasonably foreseeable future projects in the study area 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.17 Cumulative Impacts 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.17-20

would create cumulative impacts on public utilities and future land use opportunities because of rightof-way needs and property restrictions associated with these types of improvements, as discussed in 

Section 3.10. These projects would constrain future development, including future development of 

public utilities. Therefore, under the No Project Alternative the cumulative impact related to public 

utilities would be significant when considering past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

projects in the study area. 

HST Network Alternatives

Of the utilities identified at the program level, there is potential for conflicts with 33 to 126 utilities, 

depending on network alternative. The HST Network Alternatives would use a large amount of 

existing right-of-way, and extensive utility relocation could cause a considerable contribution to 

cumulative impacts on public utilities. Program-level mitigation of HST Network Alternatives’ 

contributions to the cumulative impacts on public utilities, as discussed in Section 3.10, includes 

design practices that will avoid potential conflicts, at the project-level analysis, to the extent feasible 

and practical. At the project level, coordination with utility representatives during construction in the 

vicinity of critical infrastructure will occur. Design methods to avoid crossing or using utility rights-ofway include modifying both the horizontal and vertical profiles of proposed transportation 

improvements. Emphasis would be placed on detailed alignment design to avoid potential 

contribution to cumulative impacts from linear facilities on land use opportunities and to minimize 

conflicts with existing major fixed public utilities and supporting infrastructure facilities. 

J. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTES 

Cal/EPA's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), is responsible for developing 

and maintaining the Environmental Protection Indicators for California (EPIC). The latest update to 

the environmental indicators relating to solid and hazardous wastes in 2005 shows that the total 

amount of hazardous waste shipped for treatment, storage, and disposal has fluctuated over the past 

decade, with the lowest amounts shipped in 1996 and 1997, and the highest in 2001. The amount of 

hazardous waste generated per unit of economic activity has continued to decline over the past 

decade. In addition, more than 75% of hazardous wastes shipped off site were destined for disposal 

in landfills or recycling in 2003. The amount of hazardous waste disposed in landfills has varied over 

the past 10 years but has increased overall, as has the amount being recycled. The EPIC Update 

notes that there has been no clear trend related to hazardous material spills or soil cleanup at 

hazardous waste sites (Cal/EPA 2005). 

No Project Alternative

Evaluation of the No Project Alternative assumed that no additional hazardous materials/waste 

impacts would occur beyond those addressed in the environmental documents for those projects and 

that any hazardous material/waste impacts would be mitigated as part of those projects. Therefore, 

under the No Project Alternative, there would be no cumulative impact related to hazardous 

materials/waste when considering past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the 

study area. 

HST Network Alternatives

Although past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the study area could cause 

cumulative impacts from hazardous materials and waste, implementation of the proposed HST 

Network Alternatives would not directly or indirectly generate hazardous materials or wastes. As 

noted in Section 3.11, “Hazardous Materials and Wastes,” construction of the network alternatives 

could encounter hazardous materials/waste sites through ground-disturbing activities. These sites 

would be handled and disposed of in accordance with regulatory requirements. Therefore, the HST 

Network Alternatives would not contribute to a cumulative impact related to hazardous 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.17 Cumulative Impacts 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.17-21

materials/waste when considering past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the 

study area (See Section 3.11). 

K. CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

California’s cultural heritage is a result of descendants of more than 300 indigenous tribal groups, 

European explorers and settlers, miners, and immigrants. Archaeological evidence places prehistoric 

people in California as early as 8,000 to 12,000 years ago. Each year more archaeological and historic 

cultural resources are identified and surveyed. 

The study area for the cumulative analysis of cultural and paleontological resources was identified to 

be at least 500 ft (152 m) on each side of the HST Network Alternatives. 

No Project Alternative

As described in Section 3.12, “Cultural Resources and Paleontological Resources,” it is not realistically 

feasible to identify or quantify the impacts on cultural and paleontological resources at a programlevel analysis. No additional impacts on cultural resources would occur under the No Project 

Alternative beyond those addressed in environmental documents for those projects. Therefore, under 

the No Project Alternative, the cumulative impact related to cultural and paleontological resources 

would be significant when considering past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in 

the study area. 

HST Network Alternatives

As noted in Section 3.12, the HST Network Alternatives have the potential to affect 78 to 222 known 

archaeological and historic resources, depending on network alternative. Potential impacts likely 

would occur in areas that cross formations with paleontological sensitivity and in areas where the 

proposed HST alignments and stations are adjacent to existing rail corridors, because these older 

corridors tend to be surrounded by historical structures and districts. In addition, the HST Network 

Alternatives could contribute to potential cumulative impacts on historical districts combined with 

other projects over time. Therefore, the HST Network Alternatives would contribute to cumulative 

impacts on archaeological resources, historical structures, and paleontological resources when 

considering past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the study area (Section 

3.12). 

Program-level mitigation for the cumulative impacts on cultural and paleontological resources, as 

discussed in Section 3.12, relate to avoidance measures through identification of sensitive resources 

in the project-level analysis and project design refinement, and careful selection of alignments. At a 

program level, continued consultation with the SHPO would occur to define and describe general 

procedures to be applied in the future for fieldwork, method of analysis, and development of specific 

mitigation measures to address effects and impacts on cultural resources, resulting in a 

programmatic agreement among the Authority, FRA, and the SHPO. In addition, consultation with 

Native American tribes would occur. Subsequent project-level field studies to verify the location of 

cultural resources would offer opportunities to avoid or minimize direct impacts on resources, based 

on the type of project, type of property, and impacts on the resource (see Section 3.12 for more 

detail on particular mitigation measures that would be applied through project-level environmental 

analysis). 

L. GEOLOGY AND SOILS 

The study area for the cumulative analysis of geology and soils was identified to be at least 200 ft 

(60 m) on each side of the HST Network Alternatives. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.17 Cumulative Impacts 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.17-22

No Project Alternative

As described in Section 3.13, “Geology and Soils,” although it is expected that planned projects in the 

study area would incorporate safeguards as part of the development, design, and construction 

process, it would not be possible to eliminate or mitigate all geologic hazards. Therefore, under the 

No Project Alternative, the cumulative impact related to geology and soils would be significant when 

considering past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the study area. 

HST Network Alternatives

The HST Network Alternatives could affect slope stability in various proposed locations of cut and fill. 

Some construction activities, such as placing a building or fill material on top of a slope or performing 

additional cuts at the toe of a slope, can decrease the stability of the slope. These activities, when 

combined with similar activities from other projects in the region, could contribute considerably to the 

cumulative impact on geology and soils related to slope stability in areas susceptible to slope failure. 

Pumping or construction dewatering associated with the HST Network Alternatives in segments with 

tunneling or extensive earthwork potentially would affect the ground surface and could result in 

subsidence at some locations. This could cause a considerable contribution to cumulative impacts on 

geology and soils related to subsidence if other projects under construction in the area also needed 

to dewater from the same drainage basin. 

Program-level mitigation of the HST Network Alternatives’ contributions to the cumulative impacts on 

geology and soils, as discussed in Section 3.13, includes design practices to prepare extensive 

alignment studies to ensure that potential effects related to major geologic hazards such as major 

fault crossings, oil fields, and landslide areas, will be avoided. Mitigation for potential impacts will be 

developed on a site-specific basis, based on detailed geotechnical studies to address ground shaking, 

fault crossings, slope stability/landslides, areas of difficult excavation, hazards related to oil and gas 

fields, and mineral resources.

M. HYDROLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES 

California has dealt with the limitations resulting from its natural hydrology and grown in population 

by developing a system of reservoirs, canals, and pipelines under federal, state, and local projects. 

About 30% of California’s water supply need is met by groundwater. Groundwater use increases to 

about 40% statewide and 60% or more in some regions during dry years. Approximately 40% to 

50% of the state’s population relies on groundwater for part of their water supply. It is estimated 

that groundwater overdraft3

 in the state is between 1 million and 2 million acre-feet annually. 

Overdraft can result in increased water production costs, land subsidence, water quality impairment, 

and environmental degradation. (California Department of Water Resources 2003.) 

As noted in Section 3.14, “Hydrology and Water Resources,” the study area includes portions of the 

Central Valley and San Francisco Bay regions of the RWQCBs. The Central Valley Region is the state’s 

largest and includes 11,350 miles (18,400 km) of streams, 579,110 ac (234,354.4 ha) of lakes, and 

the largest contiguous groundwater basin in California. The San Francisco Region includes San 

Francisco Bay and estuaries. In the Central Valley and San Francisco Regions, there were 204 (89 in 

San Francisco Bay Region and 115 in Central Valley Region) Clean Water Act Section 303(d) impaired 

waters in 2006 (State Water Resources Control Board 2006). 

As noted in Section 3.14, “Hydrology and Water Resources,” floodplains are important because they 

provide floodwater storage and attenuate the risk of downstream flooding, typically provide important 

 

3 Overdraft is the condition of a groundwater basin in which the amount of water withdrawn by pumping over the 

long term exceeds the amount of water that recharges the basin.
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.17 Cumulative Impacts 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.17-23

habitat for native species, improve water quality, and may provide locations for groundwater 

recharge. Historically, people have been attracted to bodies of water as places for living, business, 

and recreation. This pattern of development has continued throughout California’s history. Growth in 

floodplains alters the floodplain and the dynamics of flooding, and buildings and infrastructure are 

damaged during flood events. California has built a series of flood control facilities to minimize 

flooding and contain floodwaters. California’s Central Valley flood control facilities are deteriorating, 

and at the same time the Central Valley’s population growth is moving into areas that are vulnerable 

to flooding (California Department of Water Resources 2005). 

The study area for the cumulative analysis of hydrology and water resources was identified to be at 

least 200 ft (60 m) on each side of the HST Network Alternatives. 

No Project Alternative

As described in Section 3.14, “Hydrology and Water Resources,” although it is expected that impacts 

on hydrologic and water resources from planned projects in the study area would be limited through 

incorporation of typical design and construction practices to meet permit conditions, it would not be 

possible to eliminate or mitigate all impacts on hydrology and water resources. Therefore, under the 

No Project Alternative, the cumulative impact related to hydrology and water resources would be 

significant when considering past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the study 

area. 

HST Network Alternatives

The proposed HST Network Alternatives would encroach significantly into sensitive hydrologic 

resources, including approximately 178 ac to 573 ac (72 ha to 232 ha) of floodplains, 14,400 linear ft 

to 30,300 linear ft (4,389 linear m to 9,235 linear m) of streams, 2 ac to 42 ac (0.8 ha to 17 ha) of 

lakes and/or San Francisco Bay, and 1,094 ac to 2,900 ac (493 ha to 1,174 ha) of groundwater areas. 

In addition, the network alternatives potentially would affect between 14 and 40 polluted 303(d) 

waters. In addition to direct impacts, potential indirect impacts of the proposed project were 

evaluated as part of the cumulative impact analysis. The HST Network Alternatives could indirectly 

affect 12.3 miles to 26.1 miles (20 km to 42.3 km) of streams, canals, and channels. The amount of 

impervious surface associated with the HST Network Alternatives would be minimized because much 

of the HST facilities would consist of permeable fill, elevated structures, and/or tunnels. Design 

characteristics such as a relatively narrow alignment width and columns required to support HST 

structures also would minimize hydrologic impacts. Indirect floodplains impacts associated with the 

HST Network Alternatives range from 561 ac to 3,411 ac, while indirect impacts to water bodies, 

including lakes and San Francisco Bay, range from 7.6 ac to 253 ac. Through avoidance and design, 

the HST Network Alternatives would minimize impacts on floodplain and surface water resources; 

however, implementation of the HST Network Alternatives could cause a considerable contribution to 

potential cumulative impacts on hydrologic resources when considering past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future projects in the study area (See Section 3.14). 

Program-level mitigation of the HST Network Alternatives’ contributions to the cumulative impacts on 

hydrology and water resources, as discussed in Section 3.14, includes design practices to maximize 

use of existing rights-of-way to minimize potential impacts on water resources. Avoidance and 

minimization measures would be incorporated into the development, design, and implementation 

phases at project-level environmental analysis. In addition, close coordination will occur with the 

regulatory agencies to develop specific design and construction standards for stream crossings, 

infrastructure setbacks, erosion control measures, sediment-controlling excavation/fill practices, and 

other BMPs. In addition, mitigation strategies specific to reconstruction, restoration, or replacement 

of the resource will occur, in close coordination with state and federal resource agencies, related to 

floodplains; surface waters, runoff, and erosion; and groundwater. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.17 Cumulative Impacts 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.17-24

N. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS 

The analysis of potential impacts on biological resources and wetlands includes special-status plant 

and wildlife species, marine and anadromous fish habitat, riparian corridors, wildlife movement 

corridors, jurisdictional wetlands, and waters of the U.S. that would require a permit under Section 

404 of the Clean Water Act (and also would require documentation of compliance with EPA’s Section 

404b(1) Guidelines). 

California has about 10% to 15% of the wetlands that existed before settlement by Europeans 

(California Resources Agency, Wetlands Information System 1998a). Estimates of wetlands that 

existed historically in California range from 3 to 5 million ac (1.2 to 2.0 million ha). The current 

estimate of wetland acreage in California is approximately 450,000 ac (182,115 ha); this represents 

an 85 to 90% reduction (California Resources Agency, Wetlands Information System 1998b). The 

Central Valley region of the state contains the highest amount of wetlands. The region of the study 

area once had wetlands extending over approximately 4 million ac that have diminished over the 

years to around 300,000 ac (121,410 ha). Only 5% of the state's coastal wetlands remain intact 

(California Resources Agency, Wetlands Information System 1998a). Also in the study area is San 

Francisco Bay, which has undergone rapid, large-scale, permanent changes driven by population 

migration attracted to the region's natural setting and economic opportunities. This growth and 

urbanization have resulted in the loss of wetlands and impacts on biological resources (U.S. 

Geological Survey 2006). 

Wildlife movement corridors and habitat linkages in the study area primarily would be in three of nine 

regions identified in the California Wildlife Action Plan (California Department of Fish and Game 2006) 

and Missing Linkages: Restoring Connectivity to the California Landscape (Penrod et al. 2001). The 

effects would occur primarily in the central portion of the Central Valley and Bay Delta regions and 

the northern tier of the Central Coast region. Natural habitats in these regions have been converted 

to a variety of different land uses, including weedy pastureland, dryland farming, irrigated cropland, 

relatively permanent orchards and vineyards, large dairies, rural residential, and high-density urban. 

CDFG estimates that the overall Central Valley region has lost 99% of its historical native grasslands 

and valley oak savanna; 95% of its wetlands, and 89% of its riparian woodlands (California 

Department of Fish and Game 2006). In the Bay area, it is estimated that 88% of the original moist 

grasslands, 84% of the riparian forest, and 80% of the tidal marshes have been converted or 

substantially altered. In addition to removing and fragmenting habitats, the land uses in the regions 

also have introduced structures that impede or prevent wildlife movement within and between the 

remaining natural habitats. These structures include roads, canals, and powerlines that affect a wide 

variety of animals as well as dams, dikes, and levees that block fish migration. In the central portion 

of the Central Valley and Bay Delta regions and the northern tier of the Central Coastal region, many 

of the remaining wildlife movement corridors follow the riparian corridors along major creeks and 

rivers. 

The study area for the cumulative analysis of biological resources and wetlands was identified to be 

at least 0.25 mi (0.40 km) from the HST Network Alternatives. The direct and indirect impacts of the 

proposed project were evaluated as part of the cumulative impact analysis. Direct impacts for 

aquatic and biological resources were identified to be within the HST right-of-way footprint. Direct 

impacts for aquatic and biological resources can be either permanent or temporary. Examples of 

permanent impacts include removal or altering of a resource either during the construction phase 

(temporary) or by permanent project features. Indirect impacts, also referred to as secondary 

impacts, are those caused by the project that may occur either later in time or some distance from 

the project site, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Examples include downstream effects, 

implementation of mitigation measures for other resources that may result in secondary impacts, 

and/or the growth that would be caused or accelerated by the project. The quantities identified in 

this analysis should be viewed as areas where direct or indirect impacts could potentially occur and 

not as a specific or worst-case impact amount. Indirect impacts as a result of construction of the 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.17 Cumulative Impacts 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.17-25

HST system and other projects may also occur. This includes air quality (dust can affect certain 

species), lighting (especially for nearby nocturnal species), and runoff from activities involving soil 

disturbance (downstream water quality, erosion, sedimentation, and water temperature that could 

affect wetland or aquatic species). Construction can also set up conditions that favor the introduction 

or spread of invasive species. 

No Project Alternative

As described in Section 3.15, “Biological Resources and Wetlands,” although it is expected that 

impacts on biological resources and wetlands from planned projects in the study area would be 

limited through incorporation of typical design and construction practices to meet permit conditions, it 

would not be possible to eliminate or mitigate all impacts on biological resources and wetlands. This 

would be in addition to existing biological habitat losses that have occurred as well as the estimated 

90% of wetlands already lost in California because of past development as noted above. Therefore, 

under the No Project Alternative, the cumulative impact related to biological resources and wetlands 

would be significant when considering past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in 

the study area. 

HST Network Alternatives

The additional land required and the linear features added under HST Network Alternatives could 

cause a considerable contribution to the potential for cumulative impacts on biological resources and 

wetlands throughout the study area (1,000 ft [305 m] on either side of alignment centerlines and 

around stations in urbanized areas, 0.25 mi [0.40 km] on either side of alignment centerlines and 

around stations in undeveloped areas, and 0.50 mi [0.81 km] on either side of alignment centerlines 

and around stations in sensitive areas). 

The HST Network Alternatives potentially would have impacts on sensitive biological resources and 

wetlands when combined with other foreseeable projects (Appendix 3.17-A) in the study area. 

Portions of the HST Network Alternatives would use existing transportation right-of-way and 

therefore would minimize direct disturbance of sensitive habitats. The potential for indirect noise 

effects on biological resources is addressed in Section 3.4, “Noise and Vibration.” Although there is a 

potential for cumulative impacts on biological resources from increased noise from projects in specific 

areas, the information for assessing this potential additive effect cannot be considered at this 

program level of analysis and would be addressed when site-specific analysis is completed in a 

subsequent phase of evaluation. 

The additional embankments and bridges associated with the proposed HST Network Alternatives 

potentially would result in direct impacts on approximately 10.7 ac to 56.1 ac (4.3 ha to 22.7 ha) of 

wetlands and 74 to 129 special-status species throughout the study area. Indirect impacts on 

wetlands could be between 499 ac and 3,499 ac (202 ha and 1,416 ha). Wildlife movement corridors 

may be affected where the HST Network Alternatives would not be in an existing rail or highway 

corridor and would traverse a natural area (e.g., Pacheco Pass for the Pacheco Pass Network 

Alternatives) or where there is habitat use in existing rights-of-way (where wildlife movement occurs 

across roads and rail lines where fences are not obstructing movement). Therefore, the HST Network 

Alternatives would result in a considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact on 

biological resources and wetlands when considering past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

projects in the study area (See Section 3.15). 

Program-level mitigation of the HST Network Alternatives’ contributions to the cumulative impacts on 

biological resources and wetlands, as discussed in Section 3.15, includes design practices to maximize 

use of existing rights-of-way to minimize potential impacts on biological resources and wetlands. 

Avoidance and minimization measures would be incorporated into the development, design, and 

implementation phases at project-level environmental analysis. In addition, close coordination will 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.17 Cumulative Impacts 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.17-26

occur with the regulatory agencies to develop specific design and construction standards for stream 

crossings, infrastructure setbacks, monitoring during construction, and other BMPs. In addition, 

mitigation strategies specific to reconstruction, restoration, or replacement of the resource will occur, 

in close coordination with state and federal resource agencies, related to wetlands. The HST Network 

Alternatives generally would be located within or adjacent to existing transportation corridors or 

would be in tunnel or elevated through mountain passes and sensitive habitat areas. During projectlevel environmental review, field studies would be conducted to verify the location, in relation to the 

HST alignments, of sensitive habitat, wildlife movement corridors, and wetlands. These studies would 

provide further opportunities to minimize and avoid potential impacts on biological resources through 

changes to the alignment plan and profile in sensitive areas. For example, the inclusion of design 

features such as elevated track structures over drainages and wetland areas and wildlife movement 

corridors would minimize potential impacts on wildlife and sensitive species. 

O. SECTION 4(f) AND 6(f) RESOURCES (PUBLIC PARKS AND RECREATIONAL RESOURCES) 

The study area for the cumulative analysis of Section 4(f)/6(f) resources was identified to be at least 

900 ft (274 m) on each side of the HST Network Alternatives. 

No Project Alternative

As discussed in Section 3.16, Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources include publicly owned parklands, 

recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites that are covered by Section 4(f) of 

the DOT Act of 1966 and Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965. 

Although it is expected that impacts on 4(f) and 6(f) resources from planned projects in the study 

area would be limited through incorporation of typical design and construction practices to avoid 

these resources, it would not be possible to eliminate or mitigate all impacts. Therefore, under the No 

Project Alternative, the cumulative impact related to Sections 4(f) and 6(f) resources would be 

significant when considering past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the study 

area. 

HST Network Alternatives

The proposed HST Network Alternatives could contribute to the cumulative impact on parkland 

resources. The impacts on parkland resources from the HST Network Alternatives would be 

minimized, because it is possible to plan the HST alignment, stations, and other facilities with the 

intent to avoid or minimize potential effects by routing the train around, above, or below an identified 

resource. Depending on the network alternative selected, the HST Network Alternatives could result 

in impacts on 8 to 46 parkland resources. This includes potential impacts on the Don Edwards San 

Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge for network alternatives that extend across the Bay at 

Dumbarton Bridge and the Upper Cottonwood Creek Wildlife Area for the Pacheco Pass Network 

Alternatives (GEA North Alignment Alternative would directly impact the San Luis National Wildlife 

Refuge and the Great Valley Grasslands State Park). When combined with the impacts of other 

highway and transit expansion projects in the region, the potential impacts of the HST Network 

Alternatives could cause a considerable contribution to potential cumulative impacts on parklands and 

recreational resources throughout the study area. 

Program-level mitigation of the HST Network Alternatives’ contributions to the cumulative impacts on 

4(f) and 6(f) resources, as discussed in Section 3.16, includes design practices to maximize use of 

existing rights-of-way to minimize potential impacts on 4(f) and 6(f) resources. Avoidance and 

minimization measures would be incorporated into the development, design, and implementation 

phases at project-level environmental analysis. In addition, close coordination will occur with the 

agency having jurisdiction over the resource and the regulatory agencies to develop specific design 

and construction standards for stream/Bay crossings, infrastructure setbacks, monitoring during 

construction, and other BMPs. In addition, mitigation strategies specific to reconstruction, restoration, 

or replacement of the resource will occur, in close coordination with state and federal resource 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.17 Cumulative Impacts 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.17-27

agencies, related to wetlands. During project-level environmental review, field studies would offer the 

opportunity to avoid or minimize direct or indirect impacts on parklands by making adjustments in the 

alignment plan or profile. In the event that, during project-level environmental analysis, it is 

determined that the alternative cannot avoid being located near 4(f) and 6(f) lands, mitigation 

related to natural, cultural, aesthetic, and recreational impacts would be incorporated, including 

compensation for temporary and permanent loss of park and recreation uses; inventory and 

recordation of historic features removed; provision of alternative shuttle access for park visitors; and 

restoration of park features post construction. 

3.17.5 Mitigation Strategies 

The mitigation strategies described below are further discussed in Chapter 3 of this program EIR/EIS for 

each topic area. These mitigation strategies were identified for the program-level analysis to avoid, 

minimize, or reduce potentially significant environmental impacts, including cumulative impacts. Further 

environmental analyses tiering from this EIS/EIR will be conducted for the project-level document, as 

required by NEPA and CEQA. At the Tier 2 project level, mitigation strategies identified in the program 

document will be used as starting points to determine their applicability to a specific project and to 

develop refined and/or additional mitigation measures for significant adverse impacts identified in the 

project-specific analysis. Because all the potential actions and impacts and their significance for tiered 

projects cannot be anticipated at a programmatic level, future project-level documents will need to select 

those strategies applicable to the impacts associated with the specific location and type of action. For 

purposes of CEQA, the mitigation strategies in this final program EIS/EIR also serve as mitigation 

measures at a programmatic level. In addition, the Authority has committed to design practices and 

policies that will be used to develop alignment alternatives at the project-level to avoid impacts and to 

help shape specific mitigation measures. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.17 Cumulative Impacts 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.17-28

Resource 

Area 

Impact Area Mitigation Measure 

Traffic and 

circulation 

Traffic and 

circulation 

Require that HST system stations serve as multi-modal transportation hubs 

providing easy connection to local/regional bus, rail, and transit services, as well as 

providing bicycle and pedestrian access. 

Require the HST system to be grade-separated from all roadways to allow vehicular 

traffic to flow without impediment from the HST system. 

Work with local and regional agencies to develop and implement transit-oriented 

development strategies, as described in Chapter 6, around HST stations. 

Work with local and regional agencies to identify, plan, coordinate, and implement 

traffic flow improvements around HST station locations during project-level planning. 

Such improvements may include: 

a. a construction phasing and traffic management plan for construction periods;

b. improving capacity of local streets with upgrades in geometrics such as 

providing standards roadway lane widths, traffic controls, bicycle lanes, 

shoulders, and sidewalks;

c. modifications at intersections, such as signalization and/or capacity 

improvements (widening for additional left-turn and/or through lanes), and turn 

prohibitions;

d. signal coordination and optimization (including retiming and rephasing);

e. designation of one-way street patterns near some station locations;

f. truck route designations; and 

g. coordination with Caltrans regarding nearby highway facilities. 

Work with public transportation providers to coordinate services and to increase 

service and/or add routes, as necessary, to serve the HST station areas. 

Avoid parking impacts by developing and coordinating implementation at the 

project-level of parking improvement strategies consistent with local policies, 

including shared parking, offsite parking with shuttles, parking and curbside use 

restrictions, parking permit plans for neighborhoods near HST stations, and other 

parking management strategies. 

Air quality Localized air 

quality impacts 

due to 

congestion/traffic 

near HST 

stations 

Assure that HST stations are multi-modal hubs and include appropriate parking. 

Coordinate with local and regional public transportation providers to increase 

opportunities for connection between the HST system and other public 

transportation services. 

Work with local and regional agencies to implement local street and roadway 

improvements, including various traffic flow improvements and congestion 

management techniques, and parking management strategies to reduce localized 

pollution from traffic related to the HST system. 

Short-term air 

quality impacts 

due to 

construction 

Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. 

Require that all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials be covered or 

maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard. 

Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply nontoxic soil stabilizers on all unpaved 

access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at active construction sites. 

Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas, and 

staging areas at active construction sites. 

Sweep nearby streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil materials from HST 

system construction are carried onto adjacent public streets. 

Hydroseed or apply nontoxic soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas 

(previously graded areas inactive for 10 days or more). 

Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply nontoxic soil binders to exposed 

stockpiles of dirt, sand, etc. 

Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.17 Cumulative Impacts 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.17-29

Resource 

Area 

Impact Area Mitigation Measure 

Install sand bags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public 

roads. 

Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. 

Use alternative fuels for construction equipment when feasible. 

Minimize equipment idling time. 

Maintain properly tuned equipment. 

Noise Increased noise 

from train 

operations and 

construction 

Grade separations to eliminate grade crossing related noise. 

Noise barriers, such as sound walls, where there are severe noise impacts. 

Require noise reduction in HST equipment design and track structures design. 

Use of enclosures or walls to surround noisy equipment, and installation of mufflers 

on engines; substituting quieter equipment or construction methods, minimizing time 

of operation, and locating equipment farther from sensitive receptors. 

Where not already included, consider placing alignment sections in tunnel or 

trenches or behind berms where possible and where other measures are not 

available to reduce significant noise impacts. 

Suspend construction between 7:00 pm and 7:00 am and/or on weekends or 

holidays in residential areas where there are severe noise impacts. 

In managing construction noise, take into account local sound control and noise 

level rules, regulations, and ordinances. 

Ensure that each internal combustion engine is equipped with a muffler of a type 

recommended by the manufacturer. 

Specify the use of the quietest available construction equipment where appropriate 

and feasible. 

Turn off construction equipment during prolonged periods of nonuse. 

Require contractors to maintain all equipment and to train their equipment 

operators. 

Locate noisy stationary equipment away from noise sensitive receptors. 

Exposure to 

ground-borne 

vibration 

Specify the use of train and track technologies that minimize ground vibration such 

as state of the art suspensions, resilient track pads, tie pads, ballast mats, or 

floating slabs. 

Phase construction activity, use low impact construction techniques, and avoid use 

of vibrating construction equipment where possible to avoid vibration construction 

impacts. 

Energy Increased energy 

use and 

electricity 

demand with the 

HST system 

HST stations will be multi-modal hubs providing linkage for various transportation 

modes, which will contribute to increased efficiency of energy use for intercity trips 

and by commuters, and the stations will be required to be constructed to meet Title 

24 California Code of Regulations energy efficiency standards. 

Design practices will require that the electrically powered HST technology be energy 

efficient, include regenerative braking to reduce energy consumption, and minimize 

grade changes in steep terrain to reduce energy consumption. 

Design practices will require that localized impacts be avoided through planning and 

design of the power distribution system for the HST system. 

Locate HST maintenance and storage facilities within proximity to major 

stations/termini. 

Energy use 

during 

construction of 

the HST system 

Develop and implement a construction energy conservation plan. 

Use energy efficient construction equipment and vehicles. 

Locate construction material production facilities on site or in proximity to project 

construction sites. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.17 Cumulative Impacts 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.17-30

Resource 

Area 

Impact Area Mitigation Measure 

Develop and implement a program encouraging construction workers to carpool or 

use public transportation for travel to and from construction sites. 

Electromagn

etic fields 

and 

electromagn

etic 

interference 

Exposure of 

electromagnetic 

fields to HST 

system workers, 

passengers, and 

nearby residents, 

schools and 

other facilities 

Use standard design practices for overhead catenary power supply systems and 

vehicles, including appropriate materials, location and spacing of facilities, and 

power supply systems to minimize exposure to receptors over distance, and 

shielding with vegetation and other screening materials. 

Design overhead catenary system, substations, and transmission lines to reduce the 

electromagnetic fields to a practical minimum. 

Electromagnetic 

interference with 

electronic and 

electrical devices 

Design the overhead catenary system, substations, and transmission lines to reduce 

the electromagnetic fields to a practical minimum. 

Design the project component to minimize arcing and radiation of radiofrequency 

energy. 

Choose devices generating radio frequency with a high degree of electromagnetic 

compatibility. 

Where appropriate, add electronic filters to attenuate radio frequency interference. 

Relocate receiving antennas and use antenna models with greater directional gain 

where appropriate, particularly for sensitive receptors near the HST system. 

Comply with the FCC regulations for intentional radiators, such as the proposed 

HST wireless systems. 

Establish safety criteria and procedures and personnel practices to avoid exposing 

employees with implantable medical devices to EMF levels that may cause 

interference with such implanted biomedical devices. 

Land use Incompatibility 

with land uses 

and disruption to 

communities 

Continue to apply design practices to minimize property needed for the HST system 

and to stay within or adjacent to existing transportation corridors to the extent 

feasible. 

Work with local governments to consider local plans and local access needs, and to 

apply design practices to limit disruption to communities. 

Work with local governments to establish requirements for station area plans and 

opportunities for transit-oriented development. 

Work with local governments to enhance multi-modal connections for HST stations. 

Coordinate with cities and counties to ensure that HST facilities will be consistent 

with land use planning processes and zoning ordinances. 

Provide opportunities for community involvement early in project-level studies. 

Hold design workshops in affected neighborhoods to develop understanding of 

vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian linkages in order to preserve those linkages through 

use of grade-separated crossings and other measures. 

Ensure that connectivity is maintained across the rail corridor (pedestrian/bicycle 

and vehicular crossings) where necessary to maintain neighborhood integrity. 

Develop facility, landscape, and public art design standards for HST corridors that 

reflect the character of adjacent affected neighborhoods. 

Maintain high level of visual quality of HST facilities in neighborhood areas by 

implementing such measures as visual buffers, trees and other landscaping, 

architectural design, and public artwork. 

Impacts to 

neighborhoods 

during 

construction 

Develop a traffic management plan to reduce barrier effects during construction. 

To the extent feasible, maintain connectivity during construction. 

Agricultural Conversion of Avoid farmland whenever feasible during the conceptual design stage of the project. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.17 Cumulative Impacts 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.17-31

Resource 

Area 

Impact Area Mitigation Measure 

lands prime, statewide 

important, and 

unique 

farmlands, and 

farmlands of 

local importance, 

to project uses 

Reduce the potential for impacts by sharing existing rail rights-of-way where feasible 

or by aligning HST features immediately adjacent to existing rail rights-of-way. 

Reduce the potential for impacts by reducing the HST right-of-way width to 50 feet 

in constrained areas. 

Increase protection of existing important farmlands by securing easements or 

participating in mitigation banks. 

Coordinate with and support the California Farmland Conservancy Program to 

secure conservation easements on farmland in geographic areas where the HST 

project creates impacts. 

Coordinate with private agricultural land trusts, local programs, mitigation banks, 

and Resource Conservation Districts to identify additional measures to limit 

important farmland conversion or provide further protection to existing important 

farmland. 

Severance of 

prime, statewide 

important, and 

unique 

farmlands, and 

farmlands of 

local importance, 

to project uses 

Avoid farmland whenever feasible during the conceptual design stage of the project. 

Minimize severance of agricultural land by constructing underpasses and 

overpasses at reasonable intervals to provide property access. 

Work with landowners during final design of the system to enable adequate property 

access. 

Provide appropriate severance payments to landowners. 

Aesthetics 

and visual 

resources 

At the project-level, design proposed facilities that are attractive in their own right 

and that will integrate well into landscape contexts, so as to reduce potential view 

blockage, contrast with existing landscape settings, light and shadow effects, and 

other potential visual impacts. 

Design bridges and elevated guideways with graceful lines and minimal apparent 

bulk and shading effects. 

Design elevated guideways, stations, and parking structures with sensitivity to the 

context, using exterior materials, colors, textures, and design details that are 

compatible with patterns in the surrounding natural and built environment, and that 

minimize the contrast of the structures with their surroundings. 

Use neutral colors and dulled finishes that minimize reflectivity for catenary support 

structures, and design them to fit the context of the specific locale. 

Use aesthetically appropriate fencing along rights-of-way, including decorative 

fencing, where appropriate, and use dark and non-reflective colors for fencing to 

reduce visual contrast. 

Where at-grade or depressed route segments pass through or along the edge of 

residential areas or heavily traveled roadways, install landscape treatments along 

the edge of the right-of-way to provide partial screening and to visually integrate the 

right-of-way into the residential context. 

Use the minimum amount of night lighting consistent with that necessary for 

operations and safety. 

Use shielded and hooded outdoor lighting directed to the area where the lighting is 

required, and use sensors and timers for lights not required to be on all the time. 

Design stations to minimize potential shadow impacts on adjacent pedestrian areas, 

parks, and residential areas, and site all structures in a way that minimizes shadow 

effects on sensitive portions of the surrounding area. 

Seed and plant areas outside the operating rail trackbed that are disturbed by cut, 

fill, or grading to blend with surrounding vegetated areas, where the land will support 

plants. Use native vegetation in appropriate locations and densities. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.17 Cumulative Impacts 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.17-32

Resource 

Area 

Impact Area Mitigation Measure 

Use strategic plantings of fast-growing trees to provide partial or full screening of 

elevated guideways where they are close to residential areas, parks, and public 

open spaces. 

Where elevated guideways are located down the median strips or along the edge of 

freeways or major roadways, use appropriate landscaping of the area under the 

guideway to provide a high level of visual interest. Landscaping in these areas 

should use attractive shrubs and groundcovers and should emphasize the use of 

low-growing species to minimize any additional shadow effects or blockage of 

views. 

Plan hours of construction operations and locate staging sites to minimize impacts 

to adjacent residents and businesses. 

Public 

utilities 

Make adjustments to the HST alignments and vertical profiles to avoid crossing or 

using major utility right-of-way or fixed facilities during engineering design. 

If avoidance is not feasible, in consultation and coordination with the utility owner, 

relocate or protect in-place transmission lines, substations, and any other affected 

facilities. 

For acquisition projects which result in utility relocation, follow the uniformity and 

equitable treatment policies, and comply with the requirements, of the Uniform 

Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 for all 

property necessary for the proposed HST system. 

Hazardous 

materials 

and wastes 

Investigate soils and groundwater for contamination and prepare environmental site 

assessments when necessary. 

Design realignment of the HST corridors to avoid identified sites. 

Relocate HST associated facilities such as stations to avoid identified sites. 

Remediate identified hazardous materials and hazardous waste contamination. 

Prior to demolition of buildings for project construction, survey for lead-based paint 

and asbestos-containing materials. 

Follow BMPs for testing, treating, and disposing of water, and acquire necessary 

permits from the regional water quality control board, if ground dewatering is 

required. 

When indicated by project-level environmental site assessments, perform Phase II 

environmental site assessments in conformance with the ASTM Standards related 

to the Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Process to identify specific 

mitigation measures. 

Prepare a Site Management Program/Contingency Plan prior to construction to 

address known and potential hazardous material issues, including: 

a. measures to address management of contaminated soil and groundwater; 

b. a site-specific Health and Safety Plan (HASP), including measures to protect 

construction workers and general public; and 

c. procedures to protect workers and the general public in the event that unknown 

contamination or buried hazards are encountered. 

As part of the second-tier environmental review, consider impacts to the 

environment on sites identified on the Cortese list (Government Code Section 

65962.4) at that time. 

Cultural and 

paleontological 

resources 

Impacts to 

archaeological 

resources and 

traditional 

cultural 

properties 

Avoid the impact, or when avoidance cannot be accommodated, minimize the scale 

of the impact. 

Incorporate the site into parks or open space. 

Provide data recovery for archaeological resources, which may include excavation 

of an adequate sample of the site contents so that research questions applicable to 

the site can be addressed. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.17 Cumulative Impacts 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.17-33

Resource 

Area 

Impact Area Mitigation Measure 

Develop procedures for fieldwork, identification, evaluation, and determination of 

potential effects to archaeological resources in consultation with SHPO and Native 

American tribes. Procedures may include onsite monitoring when sites are known 

or suspected of containing Native American human remains and be reflected in 

Memoranda of Agreement with appropriate bodies. 

Coordinate and consult with tribal representatives. 

Impacts to 

historic 

properties/ 

resources 

Avoid the impact through project design. Prepare and utilize a treatment plan for 

protection of historic properties/resources that will describe methods to preserve, 

stabilize, shore/underpin, and monitor buildings, structures, and objects. 

Avoid high vibration construction techniques in sensitive areas. 

Record and document cultural resources that would be adversely affected by the 

project to the standards of the Historic American Building Survey or Historic 

American Engineering Record. 

Develop design guidelines to ensure sympathetic, compatible, and appropriate 

designs for new construction. 

Consult with architectural historians or historical architects to advise on appropriate 

architectural treatment of the structural design of proposed new structures. Prepare 

interpretive and/or educational materials and programs regarding the affected 

historic properties/resources. Materials may include: a popular report, documentary 

videos, booklets, and interpretive signage. 

Make interpretive information available to state and local agencies, such as salvage 

items, historic drawings, interpretive drawings, current and historic photographs, 

models, and oral histories. Also assist with archiving and digitizing the 

documentation of the cultural resources affected and disseminating material to the 

appropriate repositories. 

Relocate and rehabilitate historic properties/resources that would otherwise be 

demolished because of the project. 

Monitor project construction to ensure it conforms to design guidelines and any 

other treatment procedures agreed to by the parties consulting pursuant to Section 

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Repair inadvertent damage to historic 

properties/resources in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for 

Treatment of Historic Properties. 

Salvage selected decorative or architectural elements of the adversely affected 

historic properties/resources, and retain and incorporate salvaged items into new 

construction where possible. If reuse is not possible, make salvaged items available 

for use in interpretive displays near the affected resources or in an appropriate 

museum. 

Implement an agreement with appropriate bodies specifying procedures for 

addressing historic resources which may be affected by the HST system. 

Impacts to 

paleontological 

resources 

Educate workers. 

Recover fossils identified during the field reconnaissance. 

Monitor construction. 

Develop protocols for handling fossils discovered during construction, such as 

temporary diversion of construction equipment so that the fossils could be 

recovered, identified, and prepared for dating, interpreting, and preserving at an 

established, permanent, accredited research facility. 

Geology and 

soils 

Seismic hazards Design structures to withstand anticipated ground motion, using design options such 

as redundancy and ductility. 

Prevent liquefaction and resulting structural damage and traffic hazards using: 

1. ground modification techniques such as soil densification; and 

2. structural design, such as deep foundations. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.17 Cumulative Impacts 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.17-34

Resource 

Area 

Impact Area Mitigation Measure 

Utilize motion sensing instruments to provide ground motion data and a control 

system to temporarily shut down HST operations during or after an earthquake to 

reduce risks. 

Design and engineer all structures for earthquake activity using Caltrans Seismic 

Design Criteria. 

Design and install foundations resistant to soil liquefaction and settlement. 

Identify potential serpentinite bedrock disturbance areas and implement a safety 

plan. 

Apply Section 19 requirements from the most current Caltrans Standard 

Specifications to ensure geotechnically stable slopes are planned and created. 

Install passive or active gas venting systems and gas collection systems in areas 

where subsurface gases are identified. 

Remove corrosive soil and use corrosion protected materials in infrastructure. 

Address erosive soils through soil removal and replacement, geosynthetics, 

vegetation, and/or riprap, where warranted. 

Remove or moisture condition shrink/swell soils. 

Utilize stone columns, grouting, and deep dynamic compaction in areas of potential 

liquefaction. 

Utilize buttress berms, flattened slopes, drains, and/or tie-backs in areas of slope 

instability. 

Avoid settlement through preloading, use of stone columns, deep dynamic 

compaction, grouting, and/or special foundation designs. 

Surface rupture 

hazards 

Install early warning systems triggered by strong ground motion associated with 

ground rupture, such as linear monitoring systems (i.e., time domain reflectometers) 

along major highways and rail lines within the zone of potential rupture to provide 

early warnings and allow for temporary control of rail and automobile traffic to avoid 

and reduce risks. 

Continue to modify alignments to avoid crossing known or mapped active faults 

within tunnels. 

Avoid active faults to the extent possible. Where avoidance is not possible, cross 

active faults at grade and perpendicular to the fault line. 

Slope instability Install temporary and permanent slope reinforcement and protection, based on 

geotechnical investigations, and review of proposed earthwork and foundation 

excavation plans. 

Conduct geotechnical inspections during construction to verify that no new 

unanticipated conditions are encountered. 

Incorporate slope monitoring in final design. 

Difficulty in 

excavation 

Identify areas of potentially difficult excavation to ensure safe practices. 

Focus future geotechnical engineering and geologic investigations in areas of 

potentially difficult excavation. 

Monitor conditions during and after construction. 

Employ tunnel excavation and lining techniques to ensure safety. 

Hazards related 

to oil and gas 

fields 

Follow federal and state Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulatory 

requirements for excavations. 

Consult with other agencies such as the Department of Conservation’s Division of 

Oil and Gas, or the Department of Toxic Substances Control regarding known areas 

of concern. 

Use safe and explosion-proof equipment during construction. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.17 Cumulative Impacts 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.17-35

Resource 

Area 

Impact Area Mitigation Measure 

Test for gases regularly. 

Install monitoring systems and alarms in underground construction areas and 

facilities where subsurface gases are present. 

Install gas barrier systems. 

Hydrology 

and water 

resources 

Impacts on 

floodplains 

Avoid or minimize construction of facilities within floodplains where feasible. 

Minimize the footprint of facilities within the floodplain through design changes or the 

use of aerial structures and tunnels. 

Restore the floodplain to its prior operation in instances where the floodplain is 

affected by construction. 

Impacts on 

surface waters 

Use construction methods and facility designs to minimize the potential 

encroachments onto surface water resources. 

Minimize sediment transport caused by construction by following BMPs as part of 

NPDES and SWPPP requirements that will be included in construction permits. 

BMPs may include measures such as: 

a. providing permeable surfaces where feasible; 

b. retaining and treating stormwater on site using catch basins and filtering wet 

basins; 

c. minimizing the contact of construction materials, equipment, and maintenance 

supplies with stormwater; 

d. reducing erosion through soil stabilization, watering for dust control, installing 

perimeter silt fences, placing rice straw bales, and installing sediment basins; 

e. maintaining water quality by using infiltration systems, detention systems, 

retention systems, constructed wetland systems, filtration systems, 

biofiltration/bioretention systems, grass buffer strips, ponding areas, organic 

mulch layers, planting soil beds, sand beds, and vegetated systems such as 

swales and grass filter strips that are designed to convey and treat either fallow 

flow (swales) or sheetflow (filter strips) runoff. 

Use methods such as habitat restoration, reconstruction of habitat on site, and 

habitat replacement off site to minimize surface water quality impacts. 

Comply with mitigation measures included in permits issued under Sections 404 and 

401 of the federal Clean Water Act. 

Comply with requirements in the SWPPP to reduce pollutants in storm water 

discharges and the potential for erosion and sedimentation. 

Comply with requirements of Section 10 of the federal Rivers and Harbors Act for 

work required around a water body designated as navigable and applicable permit 

requirements. 

Comply with the requirements of a state Streambed Alteration Agreement for work 

along the banks of various surface water bodies. 

Implement a spill prevention and emergency response plan to handle potential fuel 

or other spills. 

Where feasible, avoid significant development of facilities in areas that may have 

substantial erosion risk, including areas with erosive soils or steep slopes. 

Impacts on 

groundwater 

Minimize development of facilities in areas that may have substantial groundwater 

discharge or affect recharge. 

Apply for, obtain, and comply with conditions of applicable waste discharge 

requirements as part of project-level review. 

Develop facility designs that are elevated, or at a minimum are permeable, and will 

not affect recharge potential where construction is required in areas of potentially 

substantial groundwater discharge or recharge. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.17 Cumulative Impacts 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.17-36

Resource 

Area 

Impact Area Mitigation Measure 

Apply for and obtain a SWPPP for grading, with BMPs that will control release of 

contaminants near areas of surface water or groundwater recharge. BMPs may 

include constraining fueling and other sensitive activities to alternative locations, 

providing drip plans under some equipment, and providing daily checks of vehicle 

condition. 

Use and retain native materials with high infiltration potential at the ground surface 

in areas that are critical to infiltration for groundwater recharge. 

Biological 

resources 

and 

wetlands 

Impacts to 

sensitive 

vegetation 

communities (as 

defined at the 

project level) 

Utilize existing transportation corridors and rail lines to minimize potential impacts. 

Use large diameter tunnels as part of the design to limit surface access needs in 

tunnels for ventilation or evacuation, as a method to avoid or limit impacts to 

vegetation and habitat above tunnels. 

Use in-line construction (i.e., use new rail infrastructure as it is built) to transport 

equipment to/from the construction site and to transport excavated material away 

from the construction to appropriate re-use or disposal sites to minimize impacts 

from construction access roads on vegetation/habitat. 

Accomplish necessary geologic exploration in sensitive areas by using helicopters 

to transport drilling equipment and for site restoration to minimize surface disruption. 

Use and reuse excavated materials within the confines of the project. 

Participate in or contribute to existing or proposed conservation banks or natural 

management areas, including possible acquisition, preservation, or restoration of 

habitats. 

Revegetate/restore impacted areas, with a preference for onsite mitigation over 

offsite, and with a preference for offsite mitigation within the same watershed or in 

close proximity to the impact where feasible. 

Comply with the Biological Resources Management Plan(s) developed or identified 

during project-level studies, as reviewed by the USFWS, CDFG, and USACE. 

Conduct preconstruction focused biological surveys. 

Conduct biological construction monitoring. 

Undertake plant relocation, seed collection, plant propagation, and outplanting at 

suitable mitigation sites. 

Prevent the spread of weeds during construction and operation by identifying areas 

with existing weed problems and measures to control traffic moving out of those 

areas such as cleaning construction vehicles or limiting the movement of fill. 

Impacts to 

wildlife 

movement 

corridors 

Construct wildlife underpasses, bridges, and/or large culverts to facilitate known 

wildlife movement corridors. 

Ensure that wildlife crossings are of a design, shape, and size to be sufficiently 

attractive to encourage wildlife use. 

Provide appropriate vegetation to wildlife overcrossings and undercrossings to 

afford cover and other species requirements. 

Establish functional corridors to provide connectivity to protected land zoned for 

uses that provide wildlife permeability. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.17 Cumulative Impacts 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.17-37

Resource 

Area 

Impact Area Mitigation Measure 

Design protective measures for wildlife movement corridors using the following 

process in consultation with resource agencies: 

a. identify the habitat areas the corridor is designed to connect; 

b. select several species of interest from the species present in the area; 

c. evaluate the relevant needs of each selected species; 

d. for each potential corridor, evaluate how the area will accommodate movement 

by each species of interest; 

e. draw the corridors on a map; and 

f. design a monitoring program. 

Utilize existing transportation corridors and rail lines to minimize potential impacts. 

Use aerial structures or tunnels to allow for unhindered crossing by wildlife. 

Impacts to 

nonwetland 

jurisdictional 

waters 

Utilize existing transportation corridors and rail lines to minimize potential impacts. 

Return degraded habitat to pre-existing conditions. 

Create new habitat by converting nonwetland habitats into wetland or other aquatic 

habitat. 

Enhance existing habitats by increasing one or more functions through activities 

such as plantings or nonnative vegetation eradication. 

Provide for passive revegetation by allowing a disturbed area to revegetate 

naturally. 

Purchase credits in an existing wetlands or aquatic habitat mitigation bank. 

Provide in-lieu fee payments to an agency or other entity who will provide aquatic 

habitat conservation or restoration. 

Prefer onsite mitigation over offsite mitigation, and for offsite mitigation, prefer that it 

be located within the same watershed or as close in proximity to the area of impact 

as possible. 

Impacts to 

wetlands 

Utilize existing transportation corridors and rail lines to minimize potential impacts. 

Return degraded habitat to pre-existing conditions. 

Create new habitat by converting nonwetland habitats into wetland or other aquatic 

habitat. 

Enhance existing habitats by increasing one or more functions through activities 

such as plantings or nonnative vegetation eradication. 

Provide for passive revegetation by allowing a disturbed area to revegetate 

naturally. 

Purchase credits in an existing wetlands or aquatic habitat mitigation bank. 

Provide in-lieu fee payments to an agency or other entity who will provide aquatic 

habitat conservation or restoration. 

Develop and implement measures to address the “no net loss” policy for wetlands. 

Prefer onsite mitigation over offsite mitigation, and for offsite mitigation, prefer that it 

be located within the same watershed or as close in proximity to the area of impact 

as possible. 

Impacts to 

marine and 

anadromous 

fishery resources 

Utilize existing transportation corridors and rail lines to minimize potential impacts. 

Comply with the terms of a Streambed Alteration Agreement for work along banks of 

surface water bodies. 

Implement a spill prevention and emergency response plan to handle potential fuel 

or other spills. 

Incorporate biofiltration swales to intercept runoff. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.17 Cumulative Impacts 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.17-38

Resource 

Area 

Impact Area Mitigation Measure 

Where feasible, avoid significant development of facilities in areas that may have 

substantial erosion risk, including areas with erosive soils and steep slopes. 

Impacts to 

special status 

species 

Utilize existing transportation corridors and rail lines to minimize potential impacts. 

Relocate sensitive species. 

Conduct preconstruction focused surveys. 

Conduct biological construction monitoring. 

Restore suitable breeding and foraging habitat. 

Purchase credits from an existing mitigation bank. 

Participate in an existing Habitat Conservation Plan. 

Phase construction around the breeding season. 

Public parks 

and 

recreation 

resources 

Impacts to parks 

and recreational 

resources 

Continue to apply design practices to avoid impacts to park resources, and when 

avoidance cannot be accommodated, minimize the scale of the impact. 

Apply measures at the project level to reduce and minimize indirect/proximity 

impacts as appropriate for the particular sites affected, while avoiding other adverse 

impacts (e.g., visual), such as noise barriers, visual buffers, and landscaping. 

Apply measures to modify access to/egress from the recreational resource to 

reduce impacts to these resources. 

Design and construct cuts, fill, and aerial structures to avoid and minimize visual 

impacts to units of the state park system. 

Incorporate wildlife under- or overcrossings at appropriate intervals as necessary. 

Where public parklands acquired with public funds will be acquired for nonpark use 

as part of the HST system, commit as required by law to providing funds for the 

acquisition of substantially equivalent substitute parkland or to acquiring/providing 

substitute parkland of comparable characteristics for construction impacts. 

Restore affected parklands to natural state and replace or restore affected park 

facilities. 

If park facilities must be relocated, provide planning studies as well as appropriate 

design and replacement with minimal impact on park use. 

Use local native plants for revegetation. 

Develop and implement construction practices, including scheduling, to limit impacts 

to wildlife, wildlife corridors, and visitor use areas within public parks. 

For temporary unavoidable loss of park and recreation facility uses, consider 

providing compensation. 

Cumulative Impacts on traffic 

and circulation 

and travel 

conditions 

The following program-level mitigation strategies can be developed, in consultation 

with state, federal, regional, and local governments and affected transit agencies, to 

improve the flow of intercity travel on the primary routes and access to the proposed 

stations or airports and would reduce this impact: 

1. Regional strategies will include coordination with Regional Transportation 

planning and Intelligent Transportation System Strategies. 

2. Local improvements could employ TSM/Signal Optimization; local spot 

widening of curves; and major intersection improvements. 

The following program-level mitigation strategies can be developed, in consultation 

with state, federal, regional, and local governments and affected transit agencies, to 

improve the flow of intercity travel on the primary routes and access to the proposed 

stations or airports and would reduce this impact: 

1. Regional strategies would include coordination with Regional Transportation 

planning and Intelligent Transportation System Strategies. 

2. Local improvements could employ TSM/Signal Optimization; local spot 

widening of curves; and major intersection improvements. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.17 Cumulative Impacts 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.17-39

Resource 

Area 

Impact Area Mitigation Measure 

Impacts on air 

quality 

The project-level mitigation strategies to address localized impacts can include the 

following and would reduce this impact: 

1. Increase emission controls from power plants supplying power for the HST 

alignment. 

2. Design the system to utilize energy efficient, state-of-the-art equipment. 

3. Promote increased use of public transit, alternative fueled vehicles, and parking 

for carpools, bicycles, and other alternative transportation methods. 

4. Alleviate traffic congestion around passenger station areas. 

5. Minimize construction air emissions. 

Impacts on noise 

and vibration 

The program-level mitigation strategies include the following and would reduce this 

impact: 

1. Design practices emphasizing the use of tunnels or trenches. 

2. Use of electric powered trains, higher quality track interface, and smaller, 

lighter, and more aerodynamic trainsets. 

3. Full grade separations from all roadways. 

The project-level mitigation strategies include the following and would reduce this 

impact: 

1. Treatments for insulation of buildings affected by noise and vibration. 

2. Sound barrier walls within the right-of-way. 

3. Track treatments to minimize train vibrations. 

4. Construction mitigation. 

Impacts on land 

use and 

planning, 

communities and 

neighborhoods, 

property, and 

environmental 

justice 

The program-level mitigation strategies for HST alignment contributions to the land 

use impacts include the following and would reduce this impact: 

1. Design practices to maximize use of existing rights-of-way and incorporating 

strategies for stations to incorporate transit-oriented design. 

2. Coordination with cities and counties in each region to ensure that project 

facilities will be consistent with land use planning processes and zoning 

ordinances. 

Impacts on 

agricultural lands 

The program-level mitigation strategies include the following and would reduce this 

impact: 

1. Design practices to avoid agricultural land conversion through maximizing use 

of existing rights-of-way to minimize encroachment on additional agricultural 

lands. 

2. Utilizing aerial structure or tunnel alignments to allow for vehicular and 

pedestrian traffic access across the alignment. 

3. Reducing the new right-of-way to 50 feet in constrained areas. 

The project-level mitigation strategies include the following and would reduce this 

impact: 

1. Securing easements. 

2. Participating in mitigation banks. 

3. Increasing permanent protection of farmlands at the local planning level. 

4. Coordinating with various local, regional, and state agencies support farmland 

conservation programs. 

Impacts on 

aesthetics and 

visual resources 

The program-level mitigation strategies include the following and would reduce this 

impact: 

1. Design practices that will incorporate local agency and community input during 

subsequent project-level environmental review in order to develop context 

sensitive aesthetic designs and treatments for infrastructure. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.17 Cumulative Impacts 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.17-40

Resource 

Area 

Impact Area Mitigation Measure 

The project-level mitigation strategies include the following and would reduce this 

impact: 

1. Design of facilities that integrate into landscape contexts, which will reduce 

potential view blockage, contrast with existing landscape settings, and light and 

shadow effects. 

Impacts on public 

utilities 

The program-level mitigation strategies include the following and would reduce this 

impact: 

1. Design practices that will avoid potential conflicts, at the project-level analysis, 

to the extent feasible and practical. These practices include design methods to 

avoid crossing or using utility rights-of-way by modifying both the horizontal and 

vertical profiles of proposed transportation improvements. Emphasis will be 

placed on detailed alignment design to avoid potential contribution to 

cumulative impacts from linear facilities on land use opportunities and to 

minimize conflicts with existing major fixed public utilities and supporting 

infrastructure facilities. 

The project-level mitigation strategies include the following and would reduce this 

impact: 

1. Coordination with utility representatives during construction in the vicinity of 

critical infrastructure will occur. 

Impacts on 

cultural and 

paleontological 

resources 

The program-level mitigation strategies include the following and would reduce this 

impact: 

1. Continued consultation with SHPO will occur to define and describe general 

procedures to be applied in the future for fieldwork, method of analysis, and the 

development of specific mitigation measures to address effects and impacts to 

cultural resources, resulting in a programmatic agreement between the 

Authority, FRA, and SHPO. 

2. Consultation with Native American tribes will occur. 

The project-level mitigation strategies include the following and would reduce this 

impact: 

1. Avoidance measures through identification of sensitive resources within the 

project-level analysis, project design refinement, and careful selection of 

alignments. 

2. Subsequent project-level field studies to verify the location of cultural resources 

will offer opportunities to avoid or minimize direct impacts on resources, based 

on the type of project, type of property, and impacts to the resource. 

Impacts on 

geology and soils 

The program-level mitigation strategies include the following and would reduce this 

impact: 

1. Design practices will be used while preparing extensive alignment studies to 

ensure that potential effects related to major geologic hazards such as major 

fault crossings, oil fields, and landslide areas will be avoided. 

2. Mitigation for potential impacts will be developed on a site-specific basis, based 

on detailed geotechnical studies to address ground shaking, fault crossings, 

slope stability/landslides, areas of difficult excavation, hazards related to oil and 

gas fields, and mineral resources. 

Impacts on 

hydrology and 

water resources 

The program-level mitigation strategies include the following and would reduce this 

impact: 

1. Design practices to maximize use of existing rights-of-way to minimize potential 

impacts on water resources. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.17 Cumulative Impacts 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.17-41

Resource 

Area 

Impact Area Mitigation Measure 

The project-level mitigation strategies include the following and would reduce this 

impact:

1. Avoidance and minimization measures will be incorporated into the 

development, design, and implementation phases. 

2. Close coordination will occur with the regulatory agencies to develop specific 

design and construction standards for stream crossings, infrastructure 

setbacks, erosion control measures, sediment controlling excavation/fill 

practices, and other best management practices. 

3. Mitigation strategies specific to reconstruction, restoration, or replacement of 

the resource will occur, in close coordination with state and federal resource 

agencies, related to flood plains; surface waters, runoff, and erosion; and 

groundwater. 

Impacts on 

biological 

resources and 

wetlands 

The program-level mitigation strategies include the following and would reduce this 

impact: 

1. Design practices to maximize use of existing rights-of-way to minimize potential 

impacts on biological resources and wetlands. 

The project-level mitigation strategies include the following and would reduce this 

impact: 

1. Avoidance and minimization measures will be incorporated into the 

development, design, and implementation phases. 

2. Close coordination will occur with the regulatory agencies to develop specific 

design and construction standards for stream crossings, infrastructure 

setbacks, monitoring during construction, and other best management 

practices. 

3. Mitigation strategies specific to reconstruction, restoration, or replacement of 

the resource will occur, in close coordination with state and federal resource 

agencies, related to wetlands.

4. Field studies will be conducted to verify the location, in relation to the HST 

alignments, of sensitive habitat, wildlife movement corridors, and wetlands. 

These studies will provide further opportunities to minimize and avoid potential 

impacts on biological resources through changes to the alignment plan and 

profile in sensitive areas. For example, the inclusion of design features such as 

elevated track structures over drainages and wetland areas and wildlife 

movement corridors will minimize potential impacts to wildlife and sensitive 

species. 

Impacts on 

Section 4(f) and 

6(f) resources 

(public parks and 

recreational 

resources) 

The program-level mitigation strategies include the following and would reduce this 

impact: 

1. Incorporation of sound barriers (e.g., walls, berms, or trenches), visual 

buffers/landscaping, and modification of transportation access to/egress from 

the public lands and recreational resource. 

2. Incorporation of design modifications or controls on construction schedules, 

phasing, and activities. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.17 Cumulative Impacts 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.17-42

Resource 

Area 

Impact Area Mitigation Measure 

The project-level mitigation strategies include the following and would reduce this 

impact: 

1. Beautification measures. 

2. Replacement of land or structures or their equivalents on or near their existing 

site(s). 

3. Tunneling, cut and cover, and cut and fill of right-of-ways. 

4. Treatment of embankments. 

5. Planting, screening, creating wildlife corridors, acquisition of land for 

preservation, and installation of noise barriers. 

6. Establishment of pedestrian or bicycle paths. 

7. Other potential mitigation strategies identified during the public input process. 

In the event that HST alignments or facilities are located within or in close proximity 

to public parks, the following mitigations for natural, cultural, aesthetic, and 

recreational impacts may be considered to offset the contribution to the cumulative 

impact, including but not limited to: 

1. Compensation for temporary and loss of park and recreation use. 

2. Recordation of any historic features removed. 

3. If necessary, provide alternative shuttle access service to park visitors. 

4. Restore directly impacted park lands to a natural state. 

5. If any facilities must be relocated, provide planning studies as well as design 

and appropriate replacement with minimal impact on park use. 

6. Inventory and record affected historic structures. Provide appropriate mitigation 

for adverse effects to historic structures. 

7. Require appropriate vehicle cleaning for all construction equipment used near 

units of the California State Park System to protect against spreading exotic 

plants or disease. 

8. Use local native plants for revegetation. 

9. Design and construct cuts, fills, and aerial structures to avoid and minimize 

visual impact to units of the State Park System. 

10. In addressing impacts to wildlife movement corridors and habitat directly related 

to California State Park System units, consult with the California Department of 

Parks and Recreation. 

11. Incorporate wildlife under- or overcrossings as necessary. 

12. Adopt construction practices to protect critical wildlife corridors and visitor use 

areas within public parks. 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.18-1

3.18 Construction Methods and Impacts 

This section describes the construction methods and related types of impacts considered for the No 

Project and HST Alignment Alternatives1

. Construction methods are the basis for assessing and qualifying 

the potential environmental impact from construction activities. These construction methods would be 

used to prepare, construct, and implement the typical highway, airport, and HST alignment 

improvements that make up the alternatives. 

3.18.1 Construction Method Approach 

This section identifies the types of construction (highway and rail alignment) associated with the 

alternatives, describes the typical sequence and methods for each type of construction, and discusses 

potential construction-related impacts. The construction of highway improvements is a common element 

of both the No Project and the HST Alignment Alternatives. Improvements that make up the alternatives 

are grouped by type of construction and their relationship to the system alternatives, as indicated in 

Table 3.18-1. 

Table 3.18-1 

System Alternative Construction Types 

Improvement Type 

System Alternative 

No Project HST Alignment 

Expanded Highway X X 

HST Alignment X 

HST Station/Facility X 

X = Common construction type.

3.18.2 Planned Highway Improvements 

Improvements to existing highways that are planned and programmed are included in the No Project and 

HST Alignment Alternatives. The improvements to existing highways include: 

• Safety improvements. 

• Straightening the alignment. 

• Interchange improvements. 

• Access and terminal/station road improvements. 

• Limiting access. 

• Adding ramp meters. 

• Adding a truck climbing lane. 

• Adding new auxiliary lanes. 

• Adding new HOV lanes. 

• Adding new general use lanes. 

 

1

 See Section 3.0, Introduction, for an explanation of how this section fits together with the HST Network Alternatives presented in 

Chapter 7, as well as for an overview of the information presented in the other chapters. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.18 Construction Impacts 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.18-2

3.18.3 Highway Improvement Process 

A. CONSTRUCTION WORKSITE CHARACTERISTICS 

The worksite for a highway capacity improvement project is the existing highway right-of-way and 

additional right-of-way (including any temporary construction easements) that has been acquired for 

the project. The defining characteristic of this worksite is the need to maintain traffic on the existing 

highway during construction of the improvement. 

During construction, traffic is first shifted to one side of the existing roadway while the opposite side 

is improved (e.g., new retaining walls and pavement installed to widen the roadway, barriers installed 

or replaced), then traffic is shifted back onto the newly improved portion while the other side is 

improved. Operational issues associated with construction are complicated and require significant 

coordination with the contractors and responsible agencies. 

B. TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE (CONSTRUCTION METHOD) 

The typical construction sequence would be: 

• Mobilization and site preparation—Clear any remaining buildings or other improvements from any 

new right-of-way. 

• Initial traffic control phase—Implement a plan for the temporary protection and direction of 

traffic. The initial traffic control plan phase would probably include construction of new sound 

walls along the new edge of the right-of-way. 

• Repeat for each traffic control phase—Remove the portions of existing structures; construct the 

portions of new structures and bridges, existing structure widening, and existing embankment 

widening or excavations; and widen pavement and install temporary pavement markings. Repeat 

for the next phase of the traffic control plan. 

• Final traffic control plan phase—Construct new wearing surface across entire width of each 

direction of roadway and install final pavement markings. 

• Finishes—Construct elements such as signage and landscaping (this phase may start prior to the 

final traffic control phase). 

Mobilization and Site Preparation

The key mobilization activity would be to develop a traffic control plan for the temporary protection 

and direction of traffic. If the capacity improvement project is expanding the highway right-of-way, 

site preparation would include clearing the new right-of-way of conflicting structures, obstructions, 

and utilities. If the project does not include new right-of-way, little site preparation work can be 

started until a plan for the traffic plan is implemented. 

Minor capacity improvement projects generally do not require sufficient excavation or embankment to 

justify developing new material sources or waste sites. Major highway widening may justify opening 

(or more likely re-opening) a quarry or other aggregate source and setting up a rock crusher. A 

project that includes replacing the existing structures or pavement may well include an aggregate 

(pavement) crushing plant to recycle used pavement into new aggregate. The crushing plant would 

not be mobilized until sufficient material has been removed to allow several months of continuous 

operation. (If the project does not require recycling, the contractor would dispose of the waste 

material, either as embankment material or at a disposal site.) 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.18 Construction Impacts 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.18-3

Initial Traffic Control Phase

Each traffic control phase would shift traffic away from that phase’s work zone and would install 

temporary barriers to protect workers in the work zone from traffic. The shift can use some 

combination of closed lanes, narrowed lanes, and the pavement shoulder for through traffic. 

Earthwork

The contractor would construct the required retaining walls, embankments, and excavations. The 

design would attempt to balance cut and fill requirements, but severe terrain or urban conditions may 

require imported fill or exported cut material. If the overall schedule permits, the embankments 

would be allowed to consolidate for a year or two before pavement is placed on them. The 

contractor would route any existing drainage that crosses the alignment through new and extended 

pipes or box culverts. The contractor would install inlets and pipes, detention basins, and outfalls for 

roadway drainage. 

Structures

The contractor would construct grade separation, drainage, and other bridges or concrete boxes as 

required. 

Pavement

The contractor would finish grading the new roadbed, install subbase, base rock, and bridge 

approach slabs, and may pave the new roadway. The new pavement would drain to the inlets 

previously constructed. The contractor would construct any transition sections required. The 

contractor would install pavement markings on the completed roadway. 

Repeat For Each Traffic Control Phase

Subsequent traffic control phases would shift traffic onto the completed portion of the work to create 

a new work zone. The contractor would construct/reconstruct the portion of the pavement and 

structures in the new work zone, then shift the traffic to a new traffic control phase until all new 

pavement and structures are complete. 

Final Traffic Control Plan Phase

For some roadway widening, when the temporary barrier is removed, the contractor would overlay a 

new pavement wearing surface across the entire roadway width. This paving could be done at night, 

when traffic volumes are reduced, and may take several nights. The contractor would install 

temporary pavement markings as the new top lift is installed. The contractor would install 

permanent markings after the new wearing course has aged for a week. 

Finishes

Construction of the new pavement wearing course and markings may complete the project, or 

construction may continue with shoulder barriers, signage, and landscaping. 

C. TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS 

The impacts of any single capacity improvement project would be localized. The impacts of a 

program of capacity improvements underway at more or less the same time would be increased, not 

only because of the longer work zones but also because a multitude of projects too small individually 

to develop their own sources may overtax commercial suppliers of aggregate and paving materials. 

Other typical impacts may include: 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.18 Construction Impacts 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.18-4

• Traffic plan lane closures and lane narrowing would divert more traffic demand than would be 

added as a result of construction traffic. 

• The existing roadway drainage would be disrupted during construction. The construction 

contractor would use silt fences, hay bales, and other measures to control runoff and erosion. 

• Roadway widening would generate waste pavement and waste structural concrete that would 

either be placed in landfills or recycled. 

• Most roadway widening activities would not increase the ambient highway noise level. 

Demolition and pile driving are inherently noisy and would be audible at nearby land uses, but 

these activities and their associated noise would also be of comparatively short duration 

compared to the paving activities. 

• Much of the work involved in setting up the traffic control phases, demolishing existing 

structures, and final paving would take place at night, when traffic volumes are less. The night 

worksites would be illuminated, and the illumination may have an impact on adjacent land uses. 

• Roadway projects would generate short-term pollutant noise increases and air emissions (fugitive 

dust emissions, mobile source emissions and asbestos) from the following construction activities: 

− Demolition of existing structures and roadways. 

− Excavation related to activities such as preparation of track beds, installation of rail, roadway 

modifications, and facilities construction. 

− Welding related to continuously welded rail (CWR) operations. 

− Mobile emissions related to construction worker travel to and from project sites. 

− Mobile emissions related to the delivery and hauling of construction supplies and debris to 

and from project sites. 

− Stationary emissions related to fuel consumption by onsite construction equipment. 

3.18.4 High-Speed Train Alignment Alternatives 

This section applies to the HST Alignment Alternatives and the new construction associated with track 

alignment and system elements. The alignment would include at-grade, aerial, bridge, and tunnel 

components. 

A. CONSTRUCTION WORKSITE CHARACTERISTICS 

In most locations, particularly in urban areas, the worksite (new HST alignment) would be close to 

existing railroad tracks or highway facilities. However, in some locations, the worksite would follow a 

new alignment independent of existing railroad or highway infrastructure through undeveloped areas. 

The new trackway and worksite would have three primary characteristics in high-speed segments—

long tangent sections connected by very large-radius horizontal curves, long sections of constant 

grade connected by long vertical curves, and underpasses or overpasses wherever the trackway 

crosses another surface transportation alignment (e.g., street, highway, railroad track). In urban 

areas, the curve radii are generally reduced because of development constraints, but the curves 

generally are still greater than the existing highway alignments. 

In some locations, such as the Central Valley, the topography simplifies construction of an HST 

trackway. The major construction effort would be to clear obstructions from an appropriately straight 

alignment and to construct grade separation structures to carry crossing roads and other railroads 

over or under that alignment. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.18 Construction Impacts 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.18-5

In other locations, especially where the HST system crosses mountain ranges, the topography would 

challenge the construction of an HST trackway. In challenging terrain, the major construction effort 

would consist of reshaping the earth (earthwork or cut and fill) and constructing bridges and tunnels 

to cross over or under the existing ground surface where it is impractical to achieve the alignment 

geometry through reshaping. 

There would be additional infrequent, but important, worksites along the alignment. These additional 

worksites include: 

• Traction power substations and signal/communications bungalows. 

• Tunnel ancillary structures (e.g., tunnel emergency egress/access points, tunnel ventilation 

buildings, tunnel drainage pumping plants). 

In addition, there would be temporary (construction-related) sites, such as: 

• Access roads and yards. 

• Embankment material and aggregate source sites. 

• Tunnel spoil and other excavation material disposal sites. 

• Rail welding, aggregate crushing, Portland cement concrete, and asphaltic concrete plant sites. 

B. TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE (CONSTRUCTION METHOD) 

The typical construction sequence would be: 

• Mobilization and site preparation—Clear the alignment of conflicting improvements, including 

buildings and utilities not already removed, and mobilize for construction, including establishing 

construction yards, building site access roads if necessary, developing aggregate sources and 

embankment material borrow pits, and preparing excavation material and tunnel spoil waste 

sites. 

• Heavy civil construction—Construct the trackbed, including embankments, cuts, bridges, or 

tunnels; construct crossing highway or railroad grade separation structures if not already in 

place; and construct supporting facilities, including central control building, vehicle maintenance 

buildings and storage yards, and passenger stations. 

• Railroad systems construction—Construct trackwork and special trackwork, traction electrification, 

and railroad signaling and communications on the trackbed and at the supporting facilities. 

• Finishes—Construct elements such as signage and landscaping (this phase would overlap with 

railroad systems installation and system testing). 

• System testing—equipment and system testing would culminate with a period of simulated full 

revenue service. 

Mobilization and Site Preparation

Construction of the HST system would require a large workforce, a large fleet of construction 

equipment, large quantities of aggregate and embankment materials, and a large number of 

manufactured products. This initial phase would develop the construction yards and other temporary 

infrastructure required to assemble and organize these construction resources. The Authority’s rightof-way acquisition program may have cleared the right-of-way of existing improvements (primarily 

buildings and utilities). If those improvements have not already been removed, the contractor would 

remove them during this phase. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.18 Construction Impacts 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.18-6

During the construction mobilization phase, the contractor would set up construction yards to receive 

equipment and products, prepare sources (i.e. quarries and borrow pits) for aggregate and 

embankment materials, and cut pioneer roads as necessary to reach remote work sites (e.g., tunnel 

portals and shafts, bridge piers). The contractor would also remove or relocate any conflicting 

improvements (buildings, utilities, roads, track) that remain on the right-of-way. 

Heavy Civil Construction

Construction of the high speed rail system would reshape a strip of land 40 to 100 ft wide to create a 

trackbed meeting the system’s horizontal and vertical alignment requirements. (The width of the 

strip of land would be greater at special locations such as passenger stations or vehicle maintenance 

facilities.) The trackbed would be grade separated—meaning that other facilities, such as existing or 

future roads, tracks, or cattle paths, would cross the alignment above or below the high speed rail 

tracks. Where the terrain is too severe, or the crossing roadways and other tracks too numerous, 

bridges or tunnels would carry the trackbed over or under the terrain. 

Reshape the earth means that the contractor would remove the existing vegetation and topsoil, 

excavate farther down (below the topsoil), or bring in embankment material and construct 

engineered fill as necessary to reach the design subgrade elevation, and cap the subgrade with 

compacted crushed aggregate subballast. The contractor would construct drainage ditches or 

subdrains on either side of the alignment. The contractor would also construct discharges from the 

ditches and subdrains at appropriate points. 

In any of these grade separation cases, the contractor would build grade separation structures and 

roadwork or trackwork on or though the structures during the heavy civil construction phase. If the 

structure carries the high speed rail alignment over the crossing road or track, the structure would be 

constructed prior to the trackbed. If the structure carries the crossing road or track over the high 

speed rail alignment, the structure could be constructed either before or after the trackbed. Grade 

separation construction would sometimes include the modification of existing or construction of new 

traffic signal systems. 

To construct a grade separation bridge, the contractor would remove the existing vegetation and 

topsoil under the future structure, construct foundations under piers and bridge abutments, construct 

piers and abutments, construct the bridge superstructure (girders and deck), and install finish 

elements such as approach slabs, metal railings, or solid concrete parapets. The foundations and 

superstructure types for any bridge would be selected in the design phase based on site-specific 

conditions from menus of likely foundations and superstructures. The foundation menu includes: 

• Spread footings. 

• Driven or drilled piling covered with a pile cap. 

• Cast-in-drilled-hole (CIDH) piers. 

The superstructure menu includes: 

• Steel or precast concrete girders supporting a deck slab. 

• A cast-in-place or precast concrete box with a deck slab integrated into the main girder. 

Precast concrete girders would also be prestressed; cast-in-place concrete boxes may be prestressed 

or reinforced without prestress. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.18 Construction Impacts 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.18-7

To construct a grade separation cut-and-cover concrete box, the contractor would excavate to a 

depth below the future box, then construct the box bottom slab, walls, and roof; backfill the sides 

and over the top of the completed box; and install finish elements such as lighting. 

Construction of any of these structures would require heavy equipment access to the site and 

maneuvering room for the equipment. In addition, the cast-in-place concrete box option would 

require falsework to support the formwork that shapes the structure. 

Bridges over severe terrain could be similar to grade separation bridges; however, because of the 

difficulty in locating intermediate piers, severe terrain bridges could require more elaborate long span 

or precast segmental superstructures. While special superstructures could reduce the access 

requirements for intermediate piers, they would still require access to both abutments and possible 

larger abutment work areas to prepare girders to be launched across the ravine being bridged. 

Tunnels through severe terrain must be excavated from headings. If the tunnel is short (up to 6 

miles long), it might be reasonable to construct it from a single heading. The selected HST system 

has no tunnels longer than 6 miles. 

At each tunnel heading access site, there must be sufficient work area to accommodate: 

• Worker and equipment staging. 

• Tunnel utility infrastructure (fresh air supply, compressed air, water, electric power, and tunnel 

drainage). 

• Tunnel spoil surge piles. 

• Storage of excavation support materials (e.g., steel ribs, rock bolts and shotcrete, precast liner 

panels). 

There must be room to transfer materials going into the tunnel from trucks to tunnel railcars, and to 

transfer spoil coming out of the tunnel from tunnel railcars or conveyor belts to trucks. These 

heading access site requirements are generally independent of the excavation method (tunnel boring 

machine, drill and blast, or road-header) or number of tunnel bores (two single-track tunnels or one 

double-track tunnel). 

After the tunnel is excavated, many of the tunnel construction access sites would become permanent 

tunnel support sites, such as ventilation plants, pump stations, traction power substations, 

emergency access points. 

To avoid or limit potential impacts along the surface above the tunnels, the selected HST system has 

limited surface access for ventilation and/or evacuation through tunnel design. The potential impacts 

associated with construction access roads would be greatly limited, and avoided altogether in some 

sensitive segments (as defined at the project level), by using in-line construction, i.e., by using the 

new rail infrastructure as it is built to transport equipment to and from the construction site and to 

transport excavated materials away from the construction area and to appropriate re-use or disposal 

sites. To avoid the creation of access roads in sensitive areas (as defined at the project level), it may 

be necessary to conduct geologic exploration using helicopter transport for drilling equipment and 

restoring sites after use, which would result in minimal surface disruption. Small pilot tunnels would 

be used where more extensive subsurface geology information is needed. 

The heavy civil construction phase may also include construction of alignment elements to support 

the subsequent railroad systems phase: 

• Cable trough or duct banks. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.18 Construction Impacts 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.18-8

• Foundations for poles supporting the overhead contact system. 

• Site work for traction power substations. 

Railroad Systems Construction

The railroad systems include trackwork, traction electrification, signaling, and communications. (The 

rail vehicles are another key system but are not discussed in this section.) 

Trackwork includes both the typical track structure and special trackwork. Special trackwork is the 

track switches, frogs, crossing diamonds, etc., that make up turnouts and crossovers. Trackwork is 

the first rail system to be constructed, and it must be in place at least locally to start traction 

electrification and railroad signaling installation. Trackwork construction generally requires the 

welding of transportable lengths of steel running rail (traditionally 78 ft in length) onto longer lengths 

(approximately 1⁄4 mile), which are placed in position on crossties or track slabs and field-welded into 

continuous lengths from special trackwork to special trackwork. 

Tie and ballast track construction typically requires that crossties and ballasts be distributed along the 

trackbed by truck or tractor. In sensitive areas, this operation can be accomplished by using the 

established right-of-way corridor with delivery of the material via the constructed rail line because inline construction techniques are proposed. The top 4 inches or so of ballast can be delivered by 

railcar over the assembled track. 

The traction electrification equipment to be installed includes traction power substations and the 

overhead contact system. The running rails, which serve as the power return current conductor, are 

also part of the electrical circuit. Traction power substations are typically fabricated and tested in a 

factory, then delivered by tractor-trailer to a prepared site adjacent to the alignment. Substation 

spacing depends on the power supply technology selected, but this document assumes one 

substation every 30 miles per the Engineering Criteria Report, January 2004. 

The overhead contact system is assembled in place over each track from components (poles, 

brackets, insulators, conductors, and various hardware). The overhead contact system is connected 

by field-wiring to adjacent substations. 

The signaling equipment to be installed includes wayside cabinets and bungalows (within established 

rights of way), wayside signals (at interlockings), switch machines, insulated joints, impedance 

bonds, and connecting cabling. The equipment supports several technologies—Automatic Train 

Protection, Automatic Train Control, and Positive Train Control—to control train separation, train 

routing at interlockings, and train speed. 

The communications equipment to be installed includes System Control and Data Acquisition 

(SCADA), telephone, radio, closed-circuit television, and visual messaging. The equipment is located 

in the system central control facility, wayside communications bungalows, passenger stations, tunnel 

equipment rooms, traction power substations, signal bungalows, and other locations. 

Communications data likely would be carried on a fiber optic backbone running the length of the 

alignment. 

Finishes

Landscaping, signage, architectural finishes, and similar items involve construction trades different 

from those required for heavy civil or railroad systems. The distinction between finishes and earlier 

phases of work is important for labor and material scheduling but not for the identification of work 

sites or overall construction methods. Finishes would be installed at the same construction worksites 

as the earlier phases of construction and would probably overlap the completion of the heavy civil 

and railroad systems work. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.18 Construction Impacts 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.18-9

Testing and Start-Up

All work would be inspected and tested as stand-alone items as part of its construction. During 

system testing and start up, the work would be checked again to confirm that it functions as an 

integrated system. For example, integrated testing would confirm that the SCADA tunnel ventilation 

system status display at central control truly reflects the status of the ventilation systems, and that 

the ventilation equipment correctly responds to commands initiated at central control. 

C. TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS 

Overall, the HST Alignment Alternative construction sites would have numerous site-specific impacts 

on adjacent land uses. However, some construction impacts would be more universal in nature. 

Typical impacts may include: 

• The worksite would generate traffic on public roads leading to the site and on private haul routes 

running along the alignment or between the alignment and construction yards. The traffic would 

include construction worker commuting, delivering construction supplies (e.g., bulk cement, 

asphalt, steel, fuel, manufactured products), and moving construction materials (primarily dirt 

from excavations to embankments, and aggregate). In sensitive areas, these operations can be 

accomplished using the established right-of-way corridor with delivery of the material via the 

constructed rail line because in-line construction techniques are proposed. 

• The worksite would be cleared of ground cover for construction. As a result, rainstorms would 

produce greater runoff and erosion than would otherwise be the case. The high speed rail 

construction contractor would use silt fences, hay bales, and other measures to control runoff 

and erosion. 

• The construction project has the potential to generate large quantities of material—from 

pavement demolition, clearing and grubbing, and soil/rock—that is anticipated to be suitable for 

reuse in the construction of the proposed HST facilities. Potential uses include aggregate for 

concrete and fill material for other portions of the line. The project itself would generate a much 

smaller volume of waste—product packaging, broken equipment, and site litter. The project may 

experience minor hydraulic fluid, motor oil, and fuel spills that would result in the disposal of 

contaminated soil. The project may generate a comparatively tiny volume of hazardous waste 

from building demolition. The high speed rail construction contractor would collect and dispose 

of solid waste appropriately. 

• Some heavy civil construction activities, notably pile driving and rock excavation with explosives, 

would be inherently noisy. Most construction activities would use large pieces of construction 

equipment, and the equipment would generate noise. Most of the construction worksite would 

be sufficiently remote so that construction noise would not cause adverse impacts on adjacent 

land uses. However, the portions of the worksite in urban areas may experience sufficient 

construction noise to have an impact on adjacent properties. 

• Tunnel excavation would likely take place 24 hours per day. As a result, tunnel heading access 

sites would also be occupied 24 hours per day and would be illuminated at night. The nighttime 

illumination may have an impact on adjacent land uses. 

• Roadway grade separations would connect to active roads at both ends of the grade separation 

worksite. Particularly in urban areas where the surrounding areas are not sensitive to noise 

impacts, roadway traffic may be such that the connection work must be performed overnight, 

when traffic volumes are less. The night connection work, if required, would be illuminated, and 

the illumination may have an impact on adjacent land uses. 

• The following construction activities would generate short-term pollutant noise increases and air 

emissions (fugitive dust emissions, mobile source emissions, and asbestos): 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.18 Construction Impacts 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.18-10

− Demolition of existing structures. 

− Excavation related to preparation of track beds and installation of rail. 

− Welding related to CWR operations. 

− Mobile emissions related to construction worker travel to and from project sites. 

− Mobile emissions related to the delivery and hauling of construction supplies and debris to 

and from project sites. 

− Stationary emissions related to fuel consumption by onsite construction equipment. 

3.18.5 High-Speed Train Stations/Facilities 

This section applies to the HST Alignment Alternatives and the new construction associated with stations 

and maintenance facilities. These facilities would include urban and rural locations, potentially jointoperated and joint-developed locations, and at-grade, aerial, and underground locations. Passenger 

stations include improvements to existing railroad stations and newly constructed stations. Substations 

and maintenance facilities would be newly constructed structures. 

A. CONSTRUCTION WORKSITE CHARACTERISTICS 

In urban areas, most worksites would include an expansion of or improvements to existing train 

stations. In rural areas, most worksites would include new construction along a new alignment 

independent of existing railroads. 

A unique characteristic of construction on existing railroad stations is the need to maintain capacity 

and passenger levels of service during the construction activities. Unlike highways, where traffic can 

be diverted to other facilities during construction, railroad stations must be able to accommodate 

demand and operations because passengers cannot typically be diverted to other facilities. As a 

result, railroad station improvements require significant coordination and planning to accommodate 

safe and convenient access for passengers and no disruptions to operations. 

The worksite for a new railroad station or maintenance facility most likely would be a constrained 

parcel of land. The footprint of the new structure and parking area would be available for the 

contractor’s exclusive use. Because parking areas and tail track/storage track areas may be 

available, the contractor could make use of these areas as a construction yard. If necessary, 

adjacent landowners may furnish temporary easements for the contractor to use as a construction 

yard during construction. 

B. TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE (CONSTRUCTION METHOD) 

The typical construction sequence would be: 

• Demolition and site preparation—Vacate identified areas within existing structures. Construct 

new entrances to existing stations if necessary. Close the portion of existing structures to be 

removed. Construct/install construction fence and barriers. Demolish existing structures 

scheduled for removal on the worksite. For new facilities, perform earthwork, drainage work, 

and utility relocation/construction as necessary. For platform improvements or additional 

platform construction, the necessary track realignment and construction would be required. 

• Structural shell and electrical/mechanical rough-in—Construct foundations and structural frames. 

Construct walls or platforms. Rough-in electrical and mechanical systems. 

• Finishes and tenant improvements—Install electrical/mechanical equipment. Install finishes and 

communications equipment. Construct tenant improvements. The actual construction sequence 

may have several additional steps if the railroad agency determines that it needs to stage 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.18 Construction Impacts 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.18-11

construction, such as completing and occupying a portion of the new work before removing the 

last of the existing structure for replacement. 

Demolition and Site Preparation

The contractor would construct detour roadways, new station entrances, and other elements required 

to take existing facilities in the worksite out of service. The other elements could be as significant as 

constructing a new utility company primary service and switchgear if the existing facility is in the way 

of the expansion. 

The contractor would close the roadway, parking, or portion of the station to be removed, install 

construction fences or barriers, and demolish the existing improvements. 

Structural Shell and Electrical/Mechanical Rough-In

The contractor would construct foundations and the structural frame of the new station. The 

contractor would enclose the new building or construct new platforms and connect the structure to 

site utilities. The contractor would rough-in electrical and mechanical systems and would install 

specialty items such as elevators, escalators, and ticketing equipment. 

Finishes and Tenant Improvements

The contractor would install electrical and mechanical equipment. The contractor would install 

communications and security equipment, finishes, and signage. The contractor may install tenant 

improvements, or developers and other tenants may have their own contractors construct tenant 

improvements. 

C. TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS 

The largest impact would be the daily disruption of station activities. There would be little 

construction impact outside of the station site. Other impacts may include: 

• Construction traffic in the vicinity of the station. 

• Operations and planning coordination for platform improvements or new platforms that require 

trackwork realignment. 

• The contractor must take care to maintain or replace the existing utilities as called for in the 

construction documents, but with care, drainage should not be a problem. 

• There may be a substantial volume of demolition debris from the site preparation phase. 

• Construction noise generally would be lost in the ambient station noise. 

• Night work in the urban station areas would need to be assessed for impacts on residential and 

commercial (hotel) areas. 

The additional worksites along the alignment may include: 

• A central control facility. 

• Revenue service vehicle storage and maintenance facilities. 

• Maintenance-of-way shops and non-revenue vehicle storage. 

• Traction power substations and signal/communications bungalows. 

• Tunnel ancillary structures (e.g., tunnel emergency egress/access points, tunnel ventilation 

buildings, tunnel drainage pumping plants). 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 4-1

4 COSTS AND OPERATIONS 

4.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter summarizes the estimated capital and operations and maintenance (O&M) costs for each 

HST Alignment Alternative evaluated in this Program EIR/EIS. 

4.2 CAPITAL COSTS

Capital costs for HST Alignment Alternatives and station location options were estimated in 2006 dollars. 

The costs are associated with HST-related infrastructure improvements and do not include the costs 

associated with the No Project Alternative. The programmed and funded improvements included under 

the No Project Alternative are assumed to have been implemented by 2020, regardless of proposed HST 

implementation. 

Capital costs were estimated for all proposed HST Alignment Alternatives and station location options 

evaluated in this Program EIR/EIS (Tables 4.2-1 and 4.2-2). Costs also were aggregated for each 

representative network alternative, as identified in Chapter 2 and compared in Chapter 7. Some 

alignments (horizontal and vertical) and station configurations previously considered have evolved since 

preparation of the statewide program EIR/EIS, and therefore costs also have changed. The proposed 

alignment alternatives and station location options selected in this program review would be further 

evaluated at the project level to identify cost savings through application of value engineering practices.

The capital costs are representative of all aspects of implementation of the proposed HST system, 

including construction, right-of-way, environmental mitigation, and design and management services. 

The construction costs include procurement and installation of line infrastructure (e.g., tracks, bridges, 

tunnels, grade separations, and power distribution); facilities (e.g., passenger stations and storage and 

maintenance facilities); systems (e.g., communications and train control); and removal or relocation of 

existing infrastructure (e.g., utilities and rail tracks). The right-of-way costs include the estimated costs 

to acquire properties needed for construction of the HST infrastructure. The environmental mitigation 

costs include a rough estimate of the proportion of the capital cost required for mitigating environmental 

impacts, based on similar completed highway and rail line construction projects. No specific mitigation 

costs are identified at this program level of review. Agency costs associated with administration of the 

program (e.g., design, environmental review, and management) are estimated in terms of add-on 

percentages to construction costs. 

The estimated total capital costs for each individual alignment alternative are presented in Appendix 4-A. 

The individual station location costs are presented in Appendix 4-B. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 4.2-1 

High-Speed Train Alignment Alternatives Capital Cost (in 2006 dollars), 

Including Contingencies and Program Implementation Cost 

Alignment Alternative by Corridor and Segment 

Length Average Cost (in dollars) 

Km Miles Per Km Per Mile 

San Francisco to San Jose Corridor: Caltrain San Francisco to Dumbarton 44.58 27.70 49,175,138 79,139,713 

Transbay Transit Center to 4th/Townsend (Caltrain 1) 2.50 1.55 159,522,378 256,726,384th/Townsend to Millbrae/SFO (Caltrain 2) 22.58 14.03 45,352,477 72,987,73Millbrae/SFO to Redwood City (Caltrain 3) 18.75 11.65 37,489,586 60,333,64Redwood City to Caltrain (Caltrain 4) 0.75 0.47 88,577,366 142,551,45

Dumbarton to San Jose 34.40 21.38 39,358,880 63,341,977 

Caltrain Dumbarton Wye (Caltrain 5) 1.62 1.01 24,593,435 39,579,29Dumbarton Wye to Palo Alto (Caltrain 6) 5.23 3.25 49,783,239 80,118,35Palo Alto to Santa Clara (Caltrain 7) 22.55 14.01 26,212,143 42,184,35Santa Clara to Diridon Station (Caltrain 8) 5.00 3.11 92,535,828 148,921,97

Station Location Options 

 Transbay Transit Center (Terminal Option)  4th and King (Caltrain) (Terminal Option)  Millbrae/SFO  Redwood City (Caltrain)  Palo Alto (Caltrain) 

Oakland to San Jose Corridor: Niles/I-880 

West Oakland to Niles Junction 44.64 27.74 35,744,748 57,525,595 

West Oakland to Jack London Square (Niles/I-880 1A) 6.72 4.18 77,055,201 124,008,32Jack London Square to Oakland Coliseum (Niles/I-880 2) 3.95 2.45 55,088,733 88,656,72Oakland Coliseum to Union City (BART) (Niles/I-880 3A) 10.52 6.54 76,504,832 123,122,59Union City (BART) to Niles Junction (Niles/I-880 4A) 23.45 14.57 2,359,136 3,796,66

12th Street/City Center to Niles Junction 43.02 26.73 34,949,176 56,245,246 

12th Street/City Center to Jack London Square (Niles/I-880 1B) 5.10 3.17 83,466,148 134,325,74Jack London Square to Oakland Coliseum (Niles/I-880 2) 3.95 2.45 55,088,733 88,656,72Oakland Coliseum to Union City (BART) (Niles/I-880 3A) 10.52 6.54 76,504,832 123,122,59
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Alignment Alternative by Corridor and Segment 

Length Average Cost (in dollars) 

Km Miles Per Km Per Mile 

Union City (BART) to Niles Junction (Niles/I-880 4A) 23.45 14.57 2,359,136 3,796,66

Niles Junction to San Jose via Trimble (Structure) 27.43 17.04 66,893,831 107,655,186 

Niles Junction to Niles Wye (S) (Niles/I-880 5A) 3.65 2.27 45,726,749 73,590,06Niles Wye (S) to Warm Springs (Niles/I-880 5B) 8.45 5.25 16,691,618 26,862,55Warm Springs to Trimble Rd (Niles/I-880 6) 2.33 1.45 214,189,581 344,704,71Trimble Rd. Option (Structure) (Niles/I-880 7B) 8.00 4.97 70,632,853 113,672,55Santa Clara to Diridon Station (Caltrain 8) 5.00 3.11 92,535,828 148,921,97

Niles Junction to San Jose via Trimble (Tunnel) 29.95 18.61 65,132,060 104,819,890 

Niles Junction to Niles Wye (S) (Niles/I-880 5A) 3.65 2.27 45,726,749 73,590,06Niles Wye (S) to Warm Springs (Niles/I-880 5B) 8.45 5.25 16,691,618 26,862,55Warm Springs to Trimble Rd (Niles/I-880 6) 2.33 1.45 214,189,581 344,704,71Trimble Rd. Option (Tunnel) (Niles/I-880 7B) 10.52 6.54 64,721,415 104,159,02Santa Clara to Diridon Station (Caltrain 8) 5.00 3.11 92,535,828 148,921,97

Niles Junction to San Jose via I-880 26.10 16.22 48,553,043 78,138,548 

Niles Junction to Niles Wye (S) (Niles/I-880 5A) 3.65 2.27 45,726,749 73,590,06Niles Wye (S) to Warm Springs (Niles/I-880 5B) 8.45 5.25 16,691,618 26,862,55Warm Springs to Trimble Rd (Niles/I-880 6) 2.33 1.45 214,189,581 344,704,71I-880—Trimble Rd. to Diridon (Niles/I-880 7A) 11.67 7.25 39,421,689 63,443,05

Niles Junction to Altamont 13.13 8.16 55,263,716 88,938,329 

Niles Junction to Niles Wye (S) (Niles/Dumbarton XN) 4.25 2.64 35,018,018 56,356,03Niles Wye (S) to Warm Springs (Niles/Dumbarton XS) 8.88 5.52 64,964,684 104,550,52

Station Location Options 

 West Oakland/7th Street  12th Street/City Center  Coliseum/Airport  Union City (Bart)  Fremont (Warm Springs) 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Alignment Alternative by Corridor and Segment 

Length Average Cost (in dollars) 

Km Miles Per Km Per Mile 

San Jose to Central Valley Corridor: Pacheco Pass 

Pacheco 92.50 57.48 38,800,727 62,443,717 

Diridon to Morgan Hill (Pacheco 1) 32.50 20.19 20,366,713 32,777,04Morgan Hill to Gilroy (Pacheco 2) 16.00 9.94 23,730,117 38,189,92Gilroy to San Luis Reservoir (Pacheco 3) 44.00 27.34 57,896,982 93,176,16

Henry Miller (UPRR Connection) 100.89 62.69 13,489,349 21,709,003 

San Luis Reservoir to Valley Floor (Pacheco 4) 15.45 9.60 27,554,846 44,345,22Western Valley to Henry Miller UP Wye (HM-1) 58.05 36.07 10,870,134 17,493,78Henry Miller UP North Wye to UP South Wye (HM-2) 8.19 5.09 11,200,428 18,025,34Henry Miller Wye North to UPRR (HM/UP-XN) 11.25 6.99 11,845,555 19,063,57Henry Miller Wye South to UPRR (HM/UP-XS) 7.95 4.94 9,962,265 16,032,71

Henry Miller (BNSF Connection) 104.70 65.06 13,324,586 21,443,843 

San Luis Reservoir to Valley Floor (Pacheco 4) 15.45 9.60 27,554,846 44,345,22Western Valley to Henry Miller UP Wye (HM-1) 58.05 36.07 10,870,134 17,493,78Henry Miller UP North Wye to UP South Wye (HM-2) 8.19 5.09 11,200,428 18,025,34Henry Miller UP South Wye to BNSF Wyes (HM-3) 4.62 2.87 11,920,369 19,183,97Henry Miller Wye North to BNSF (HM/BN-XN) 8.70 5.40 13,137,656 21,143,00Henry Miller Wye South to BNSF (HM/BN-XS) 9.70 6.03 7,975,551 12,835,40

GEA North 80.25 49.87 16,775,455 26,997,477 

San Luis Reservoir to Atwater Wye (GEA-1A) 47.70 29.64 12,125,069 19,513,40GEA Wye to Atwater (GEA-1B) 9.30 5.78 7,483,268 12,043,15GEA Wye to Arena (SR-99) (GEA XN-1) 10.85 6.74 13,768,794 22,158,72Arena (SR-99) to Ballico West (GEA XN-2) 8.57 5.33 10,530,597 16,947,35Arena (SR-99) to Ballico North (GEA XN-3) 9.40 5.84 22,965,148 36,958,82GEA Atwater Wye South to Merced UP (GEA-UPRR XS) 11.10 6.90 27,186,344 43,752,18

Station Location Options 

 San Jose (Diridon)  Morgan Hill (Caltrain)  Gilroy (Caltrain) 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Alignment Alternative by Corridor and Segment 

Length Average Cost (in dollars) 

Km Miles Per Km Per Mile 

East Bay to Central Valley Corridor: Altamont Pass 

I-680/580/UPRR 49.43 30.71 48,015,427 77,273,339 

Niles Canyon to Sunol (UPRR-2A/2B) 6.27 3.90 99,895,152 160,765,66Sunol to Dublin/Pleasanton BART (I-680/580/UPRR-1) 11.72 7.28 43,125,032 69,403,01Dublin/Pleasanton BART to El Charo Road (I-680/580/UPRR-2) 4.09 2.54 37,877,905 60,958,57El Charo Road to Livermore (I-580) (I-680/580/UPRR-3) 5.32 3.31 37,708,288 60,685,60Livermore (I-580) to Greenville (I-680/580/UPRR-4) 8.11 5.04 36,480,045 58,708,94Greenville to Altamont Pass (I-680/580/UPRR-5) 8.66 5.38 61,995,084 99,771,41Altamont Pass to County Line (UPRR-9) 5.26 3.27 10,170,795 16,368,30

I-580/UPRR 43.96 27.32 45,493,874 73,215,293 

Niles Canyon to Sunol (UPRR-2A/2B) 6.27 3.90 99,895,152 160,765,66Sunol to Pleasanton (UPRR-3) 3.30 2.05 44,840,606 72,163,96Pleasanton to El Charo (UPRR-4) 2.59 1.61 26,405,269 42,495,16UPRR to I-580 Connector (Pleasanton X) 4.45 2.77 15,878,585 25,554,10El Charo Road to Livermore (I-580) (I-680/580/UPRR-3) 5.32 3.31 37,708,288 60,685,60Livermore (I-580) to Greenville (I-680/580/UPRR-4) 8.11 5.04 36,480,045 58,708,94Greenville to Altamont Pass (I-680/580/UPRR-5) 8.66 5.38 61,995,084 99,771,41Altamont Pass to County Line (UPRR-9) 5.26 3.27 10,170,795 16,368,30

Patterson Pass/UPRR 41.19 25.60 41,847,512 67,347,043 

Niles Canyon to Sunol (UPRR-2A/2B) 6.27 3.90 99,895,152 160,765,66Sunol to Pleasanton (UPRR-3) 3.30 2.05 44,840,606 72,163,96Pleasanton to El Charo (UPRR-4) 2.59 1.61 26,405,269 42,495,16El Charo to Livermore (UPRR-5) 6.41 3.98 7,350,429 11,829,36Livermore to Patterson Pass cut off (UPRR-6) 3.55 2.21 20,957,133 33,727,23Patterson Pass 19.07 11.85 39,822,791 64,088,57

UPRR 41.62 25.86 40,377,726 64,981,651 

Niles Canyon to Sunol (UPRR-2A/2B) 6.27 3.90 99,895,152 160,765,66Sunol to Pleasanton (UPRR-3) 3.30 2.05 44,840,606 72,163,96Pleasanton to El Charo (UPRR-4) 2.59 1.61 26,405,269 42,495,16El Charo to Livermore (UPRR-5) 6.41 3.98 7,350,429 11,829,36
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Alignment Alternative by Corridor and Segment 

Length Average Cost (in dollars) 

Km Miles Per Km Per Mile 

Livermore to Patterson Pass cutoff (UPRR-6) 3.55 2.21 20,957,133 33,727,23Patterson Pass cut off to Greenville (UPRR-7) 2.99 1.86 18,265,628 29,395,67Greenville to Altamont Pass (UPRR-8) 11.25 6.99 54,058,154 86,998,16Altamont Pass to County Line (UPRR-9) 5.26 3.27 10,170,795 16,368,30

Tracy Downtown (BNSF Connection) 86.22 53.58 17,787,134 28,625,617 

County Line to Tracy Downtown (UPRR-10) 12.84 7.98 23,802,574 38,306,52Tracy Downtown to I-205 (UPRR-11 7.34 4.56 15,988,833 25,731,53I-205 to S. UPPRR (UPRR-12) 8.31 5.16 14,955,715 24,068,89I-205 to Lathrop—Northern (UPRR-13) 13.14 8.16 18,113,361 29,150,62Southwestern Manteca (MC-1) 1.46 0.91 27,687,372 44,558,50Southeastern Manteca (MC-2) 1.83 1.14 25,102,875 40,399,16Northern Escaton Wye to BNSF (MC-5) 4.30 2.67 23,422,722 37,695,21Southern Escaton Wye to BNSF (part 1) (MC-6) 22.84 14.19 8,972,327 14,439,56Southern Escaton Wye to BNSF (part 2) (MC-7) 14.17 8.80 25,164,616 40,498,52

Tracy ACE Station (BNSF Connection) 86.87 53.98 18,877,113 30,379,768 

County Line to South of Tracy (S UPRR-1) 2.09 1.30 13,128,290 21,127,93South of Tracy to Tracy ACE Station (S UPRR-2) 15.51 9.64 25,499,265 41,037,08Tracy ACE Station to I-205 (S UPRR-3) 7.14 4.44 11,856,678 19,081,47I-205 to Southeast of Manteca (S UPRR-4) 6.46 4.02 15,269,787 24,574,34I-205 to Lathrop—Southern (S UPRR-5) 11.07 6.88 25,750,831 41,441,94Southwestern Manteca (MC-1) 1.46 0.91 27,687,372 44,558,50Southeastern Manteca (MC-2) 1.83 1.14 25,102,875 40,399,16Northern Escaton Wye to BNSF (MC-5) 4.30 2.67 23,422,722 37,695,21Southern Escaton Wye to BNSF (part 1) (MC-6) 22.84 14.19 8,972,327 14,439,56Southern Escaton Wye to BNSF (part 2) (MC-7) 14.17 8.80 25,164,616 40,498,52

Tracy ACE Station (UPRR Connection) 47.93 29.78 29,956,447 48,210,228 

County Line to South of Tracy (S UPRR-1) 2.09 1.30 13,128,290 21,127,93South of Tracy to Tracy ACE Station (S UPRR-2) 15.51 9.64 25,499,265 41,037,08Tracy ACE Station to I-205 (S UPRR-3) 7.14 4.44 11,856,678 19,081,47I-205 to Southeast of Manteca (S UPRR-4) 6.46 4.02 15,269,787 24,574,34
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Alignment Alternative by Corridor and Segment 

Length Average Cost (in dollars) 

Km Miles Per Km Per Mile 

Southwestern Manteca (MC-1) 1.46 0.91 27,687,372 44,558,50Southeastern Manteca (MC-2) 1.83 1.14 25,102,875 40,399,16Eastern Manteca UPRR South to BNSF (MC-3) 9.17 5.70 74,962,364 120,640,23Manteca to Escaton Wye (MC-4) 4.28 2.66 13,118,552 21,112,26

Tracy Downtown (UPRR Connection) 58.36 36.26 27,670,588 44,531,495 

County Line to Tracy Downtown (UPRR-10) 12.84 7.98 23,802,574 38,306,52Tracy Downtown to I-205 (UPRR-11) 7.34 4.56 15,988,833 25,731,53I-205 to S. UPPRR (UPRR-12) 8.31 5.16 14,955,715 24,068,89I-205 to Lathrop—Northern (UPRR-13) 13.14 8.16 18,113,361 29,150,62Southwestern Manteca (MC-1) 1.46 0.91 27,687,372 44,558,50Southeastern Manteca (MC-2) 1.83 1.14 25,102,875 40,399,16Eastern Manteca UPRR South to BNSF (MC-3) 9.17 5.70 74,962,364 120,640,23Manteca to Escaton Wye (MC-4) 4.28 2.66 13,118,552 21,112,26

East Bay Connections 13.13 8.16 55,263,716 88,938,329 

Niles to Union City—Niles Wye (E) to Niles Wye (N) (Dumbarton/Niles XN) 4.25 2.64 35,018,018 56,356,03Niles to Fremont—Niles Wye (E) to Niles Wye (S) (Dumbarton/Niles XS) 8.88 5.52 64,964,684 104,550,52

Station Location Options 

 Pleasanton (I-680/Bernal Rd)  Pleasanton (BART)  Livermore (Downtown-At Grade)  Livermore (Downtown-Aerial)  Livermore (I-580)  Livermore (Greenville Road/UPRR)  Livermore (Greenville Road/I-580)  Tracy (Downtown)  Tracy (ACE) 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Alignment Alternative by Corridor and Segment 

Length Average Cost (in dollars) 

Km Miles Per Km Per Mile 

San Francisco Bay Crossings Corridor 

Transbay Crossing—Transbay Transit Center 11.71 7.28 338,317,199 544,468,754 

Transbay Transit Center tube to SF Bay (TB-1) 2.48 1.54 252,855,279 406,931,12SF Bay to West Oakland (TB-3) 9.23 5.74 361,279,882 581,423,61

Transbay Crossing—4th & King 11.06 6.87 343,054,247 552,092,294 

4th/Townsend tube to SF Bay (TB-2) 1.83 1.14 251,129,323 404,153,47SF Bay to West Oakland (TB-3) 9.23 5.74 361,279,882 581,423,61

Dumbarton (High Bridge) 30.67 19.06 63,990,228 102,982,290 

Dumbarton Wye North to Caltrain (Dumbarton-XN) 2.20 1.37 73,361,640 118,064,11Dumbarton Wye South to Caltrain (Dumbarton-XS) 0.96 0.60 13,082,432 21,054,13Dumbarton Bay Crossing to Don Edwards (Dumbarton-1 [High Bridge]) 10.01 6.22 88,615,763 142,613,24Dumbarton Bay Crossing to Don Edwards (Dumbarton-2 [High Bridge]) 13.00 8.08 60,644,584 97,597,99Shinn to Niles Canyon (UPRR-1) 4.50 2.80 25,166,985 40,502,33

Dumbarton (Low Bridge) 32.21 20.01 47,523,861 76,482,241 

Dumbarton Wye North to Caltrain (Dumbarton-XN) 2.20 1.37 73,361,640 118,064,11Dumbarton Wye South to Caltrain (Dumbarton-XS) 0.96 0.60 13,082,432 21,054,13Dumbarton Bay Crossing to Don Edwards (Dumbarton-1 [Low Bridge]) 11.55 7.18 53,574,758 86,220,21Dumbarton Bay Crossing to Don Edwards (Dumbarton-2 [Low Bridge]) 13.00 8.08 48,057,610 77,341,22Shinn to Niles Canyon (UPRR-1) 4.50 2.80 25,166,985 40,502,33

Dumbarton (Tube) 30.67 19.06 75,782,552 121,960,196 

Dumbarton Wye North to Caltrain (Dumbarton-XN) 2.20 1.37 73,361,640 118,064,11Dumbarton Wye South to Caltrain (Dumbarton-XS) 0.96 0.60 13,082,432 21,054,13Dumbarton Bay Crossing to Don Edwards (Dumbarton-1 [Tube]) 10.01 6.22 100,498,996 161,737,45Dumbarton Bay Crossing to Don Edwards (Dumbarton-2 [Tube]) 13.00 8.08 79,315,322 127,645,63Shinn to Niles Canyon (UPRR-1) 4.50 2.80 25,166,985 40,502,33

Fremont Central Park (High Bridge) 32.36 20.11 84,449,717 135,908,645 

Dumbarton Wye North to Caltrain (Dumbarton-XN) 2.20 1.37 73,361,640 118,064,11Dumbarton Wye South to Caltrain (Dumbarton-XS) 0.96 0.60 13,082,432 21,054,13
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Alignment Alternative by Corridor and Segment 

Length Average Cost (in dollars) 

Km Miles Per Km Per Mile 

Dumbarton Bay Crossing to Don Edwards (Dumbarton-1 [High Bridge]) 10.01 6.22 88,615,763 142,613,24Fremont Central Park (Fremont Central Park [High Bridge]) 19.19 11.92 87,118,428 140,203,51

Fremont Central Park (Low Bridge) 34.94 21.71 64,246,458 103,394,652 

Dumbarton Wye North to Caltrain (Dumbarton-XN) 2.20 1.37 73,361,640 118,064,11Dumbarton Wye South to Caltrain (Dumbarton-XS) 0.96 0.60 13,082,432 21,054,13Dumbarton Bay Crossing to Don Edwards (Dumbarton-1 [Low Bridge]) 11.55 7.18 53,574,758 86,220,21Fremont Central Park (Fremont Central Park [Low Bridge]) 20.23 12.57 71,775,978 115,512,24

Fremont Central Park (Tube) 34.94 21.71 88,556,605 142,518,041 

Dumbarton Wye North to Caltrain (Dumbarton-XN) 2.20 1.37 73,361,640 118,064,11Dumbarton Wye South to Caltrain (Dumbarton-XS) 0.96 0.60 13,082,432 21,054,13Dumbarton Bay Crossing to Don Edwards (Dumbarton-1 ) 10.01 6.22 100,498,996 161,737,45Don Edwards to Niles Wye (E) via Fremont Central Park (Fremont Central Park [Tube]) 21.77 13.53 87,930,269 141,510,05

Station Location Option

Union City (Shinn) 

Central Valley Corridor BNSF—UPRR 149.65 92.99 15,891,685 25,575,188 

North Stockton South to UPRR Connection (BNSF N/S-1) 17.50 10.87 8,362,619 13,458,33BNSF Parallel to UPRR Tracks (BNSF N/S-2) 3.50 2.17 8,090,264 13,020,01Parallel tracks South through Escaton (BNSF N/S-3) 13.55 8.42 13,929,771 22,417,79Escaton South to Amtrak Briggsmore (BNSF N/S-4) 13.85 8.61 18,871,199 30,370,25Amtrak Briggsmore to UPRR/BNSF Connection (BNSF N/S-5) 39.85 24.76 15,645,491 25,178,97UPRR/BNSF Connection to Atwater (BNSF N/S-6) 6.30 3.91 16,322,332 26,268,24Atwater to Downtown Merced (BNSF N/S-7) 17.00 10.56 25,661,185 41,297,67Merced South to BNSF Connection (BNSF N/S-8) 4.75 2.95 32,162,740 51,760,91BNSF Connection South to Henry Miller Wye (BNSF N/S-9) 17.45 10.84 8,686,037 13,978,82BNSF Henry Miller Wye (BNSF N/S-10) 15.90 9.88 18,020,529 29,001,23

BNSF 161.55 100.38 15,203,210 24,467,194 

North Stockton South to UPRR Connection (BNSF N/S-1) 17.50 10.87 8,362,619 13,458,33BNSF Parallel to UPRR tracks (BNSF N/S-2) 3.50 2.17 8,090,264 13,020,01
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Alignment Alternative by Corridor and Segment 

Length Average Cost (in dollars) 

Km Miles Per Km Per Mile 

Parallel tracks South through Escaton (BNSF N/S-3) 13.55 8.42 13,929,771 22,417,79Escaton South to Amtrak Briggsmore (BNSF N/S-4) 13.85 8.61 18,871,199 30,370,25Amtrak Briggsmore to UPRR/BNSF Connection (BNSF N/S-5) 39.85 24.76 15,645,491 25,178,97UPRR/BNSF Connection to Atwater (BNSF N/S-6) 6.30 3.91 16,322,332 26,268,24Atwater to Downtown Merced (BNSF N/S-7) 17.00 10.56 25,661,185 41,297,67Merced South to UPRR Connection (BNSF N/S-8) 8.00 4.97 32,682,285 52,597,03UPRR Connection East to Castle Connection (BNSF N/S-9) 17.66 10.97 9,825,892 15,813,24Castle Connection to Henry Miller Wye (BNSF N/S-10) 13.44 8.35 10,838,922 17,443,55Henry Miller Wye (BNSF N/S-11) 10.90 6.77 8,082,286 13,007,17

UPRR N/S 134.95 83.85 18,862,722 30,356,608 

French Camp to Lathrop (UPRR N/S-1) 8.00 4.97 13,627,270 21,930,96Lathrop through Manteca (UPRR N/S-2) 8.70 5.41 21,359,159 34,374,23Manteca South to BNSF/UPRR (UPRR N/S-3) 3.30 2.05 7,761,402 12,490,76BNSF/UPRR South to Modesto (UPRR N/S-4) 18.50 11.50 15,559,246 25,040,17UPRR Modesto South—Western Option (UPRR N/S-5a*) 4.20 2.61 84,115,056 135,370,06South Modesto to BNSF Connection (UPRR N/S-6) 20.90 12.99 21,150,677 34,038,71BNSF Connection South to Merced (UPRR N/S-7) 33.25 20.66 16,572,019 26,670,07Merced South to BNSF Connection (UPRR N/S-8) 4.75 2.95 32,162,740 51,760,91BNSF Connection South to Henry Miller Wye (UPRR N/S-9) 17.45 10.84 8,686,037 13,978,82BNSF Henry Miller Wye (UPRR N/S-10) 15.90 9.88 18,020,529 29,001,23

BNSF Castle 148.74 92.42 14,323,359 23,051,212 

North Stockton South to UPRR Connection (BNSF N/S-1) 17.50 10.87 8,362,619 13,458,33BNSF Parallel to UPRR tracks (BNSF N/S-2) 3.50 2.17 8,090,264 13,020,01Parallel tracks South through Escaton (BNSF N/S-3) 13.55 8.42 13,929,771 22,417,79Escaton South to Amtrak Briggsmore (BNSF N/S-4) 13.85 8.61 18,871,199 30,370,25Amtrak Briggsmore to UPRR/BNSF Connection (BNSF N/S-5) 39.85 24.76 15,645,491 25,178,97From BNSF Southeast to Castle AFB (BNSF Castle-1) 17.60 10.94 9,100,491 14,645,82Castle AFB South to BNSF Connect (BNSF Castle-2) 10.52 6.54 22,904,277 36,860,86BNSF South of Castle to UPRR Connect (BNSF Castle-3) 8.02 4.98 30,814,309 49,590,82Castle Connection to Henry Miller Wye (BNSF N/S-10) 13.44 8.35 10,838,922 17,443,55
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Alignment Alternative by Corridor and Segment 

Length Average Cost (in dollars) 

Km Miles Per Km Per Mile 

Henry Miller Wye (BNSF N/S-11) 10.90 6.77 8,082,286 13,007,17

UPRR—BNSF Castle 139.24 86.52 17,417,257 28,030,358 

French Camp to Lathrop (UPRR N/S-1) 8.00 4.97 13,627,270 21,930,96Lathrop through Manteca (UPRR N/S-2) 8.70 5.41 21,359,159 34,374,23Manteca South to BNSF/UPRR (UPRR N/S-3) 3.30 2.05 7,761,402 12,490,76BNSF/UPRR South to Modesto (UPRR N/S-4) 18.50 11.50 15,559,246 25,040,17UPRR Modesto South—Western Option (UPRR N/S-5a*) 4.20 2.61 84,115,056 135,370,06South Modesto to BNSF Connection (UPRR N/S-6) 20.90 12.99 21,150,677 34,038,71North South Connection East of Stockton (South Portion) (UPRR-BNSF X-2) 15.15 9.41 9,196,591 14,800,47From BNSF Southeast to Castle AFB (BNSF Castle-1) 17.60 10.94 9,100,491 14,645,82Castle AFB South to BNSF Connect (BNSF Castle-2) 10.52 6.54 22,904,277 36,860,86BNSF South of Castle to UPRR Connect (BNSF Castle-3) 8.02 4.98 30,814,309 49,590,82Castle Connection to Henry Miller Wye (BNSF N/S-10) 13.44 8.35 10,838,922 17,443,55Henry Miller Wye (BNSF N/S-11) 10.90 6.77 8,082,286 13,007,17

UPRR—BNSF 140.15 87.09 19,071,736 30,692,985 

French Camp to Lathrop (UPRR N/S-1) 8.00 4.97 13,627,270 21,930,96Lathrop through Manteca (UPRR N/S-2) 8.70 5.41 21,359,159 34,374,23Manteca South to BNSF/UPRR (UPRR N/S-3) 3.30 2.05 7,761,402 12,490,76BNSF/UPRR South to Modesto (UPRR N/S-4) 18.50 11.50 15,559,246 25,040,17UPRR Modesto South—Western Option (UPRR N/S-5a*) 4.20 2.61 84,115,056 135,370,06South Modesto to BNSF Connection (UPRR N/S-6) 20.90 12.99 21,150,677 34,038,71North South Connection East of Stockton (South Portion) (UPRR-BNSF X-2) 15.15 9.41 9,196,591 14,800,47UPRR/BNSF Connection to Atwater (BNSF N/S-6) 6.30 3.91 16,322,332 26,268,24Atwater to Downtown Merced (BNSF N/S-7) 17.00 10.56 25,661,185 41,297,67Merced South to BNSF Connection (BNSF N/S-8) 4.75 2.95 32,162,740 51,760,91BNSF Connection South to Henry Miller Wye (BNSF N/S-9) 17.45 10.84 8,686,037 13,978,82BNSF Henry Miller Wye (BNSF N/S-10) 15.90 9.88 18,020,529 29,001,23
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Alignment Alternative by Corridor and Segment 

Length Average Cost (in dollars) 

Km Miles Per Km Per Mile 

Station Location Options 

 Modesto (Downtown)  Briggsmore (Amtrak)  Merced (Downtown)  Castle Air Force Base 

* Option 5B more expensive by $26,806,470.
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 4 Costs 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 4-13

Table 4.2-2 

High-Speed Train Passenger Station Cost Summary 

Station 

 Quantity 

Cost 

(in 2006 

Terminal Station dollars) 

S1 4th & King Station (Caltrain1-2, Caltrain Urban Tunnel) Each 791,939,278 

S2 Transbay Transit Center Station (Caltrain1-TB1, Urban—Tunnel) Each 786,262,418 

S3 West Oakland/7th Street Station (Niles/I-880 1A, Urban—Tunnel) Each 611,197,055 

S4 12th Street/City Center Station (Niles/I-880 1B, Urban—Tunnel) Each 611,197,055 

Intermediate Station 

S5 San Jose Diridon Station (Caltrain 8-Pacheco 1, Urban—Aerial) Each 185,051,790 

S6 Millbrae/SFO Station (Caltrain 2-3, Urban—At Grade) Each 29,076,600 

S7 Redwood City Station (Caltrain 3-4, Urban—At Grade) Each 67,516,558 

S8 Palo Alto (Caltrain 6-7, Urban—At Grade) Each 67,516,558 

S9 Coliseum/Airport Station (Niles/I-880 2-3, Urban—At Grade) Each 61,735,853 

S10 Union City (BART) Station (Niles/I-880 3-4, Urban—Aerial) Each 69,853,070 

S11 Union City (Shinn) Station (Niles/I-880 4-5, Urban—Aerial) Each 310,150,400 

S12 Fremont (Warm Springs) Station (Niles/I-880 5-6, Suburban—Aerial) Each 156,875,180 

S13 Newark Station (Caltrain 2-3, Suburban—Aerial) Each 310,150,400 

S14 Pleasanton (BART) Station (I-680/580/UPRR 1-2, Suburban—Aerial) Each 316,675,328 

S15 Pleasanton (I-680/Bernal) Station (UPRR 3-4, Suburban—At Grade) Each 72,639,578 

S16 Livermore 1 (I-580) Station (I-680/580/UPRR 3-4, Undeveloped—Aerial) Each 151,769,468 

S17 Livermore 2 (Downtown) Station (UPRR 5-6, Urban—At Grade) Each 73,297,263 

S18 Livermore 2 (Downtown) Station (UPRR 5-6, Urban—Aerial) Each 314,667,658 

S19 

Livermore (Greenville Road/I-580) Station (I-680/580/UPRR 4-5, 

Undeveloped—Aerial) Each 160,180,913 

S20 Livermore (Greenville Road/UPRR) Station Each 72,639,578 

S21 Tracy 1 (Downtown) Station (UPRR 10-11, Urban—Aerial) Each 310,150,400 

S22 Tracy 2 (Existing ACE) Station (SUPRR 2-3, Suburban—Aerial) Each 314,667,658 

S23 Gilroy (Caltrain) Station (Pacheco 2-3, Urban—Aerial) Each 148,256,045 

S24 Morgan Hill (Caltrain) Station (Pacheco 1-2, Suburban—Aerial) Each 284,985,295 

S25 Modesto Downtown Station (UPRR N/S 4-5A/B, Urban—At Grade) Each 71,428,053 

S26 Briggsmore (Amtrak) Station (BNSF N/S 4-5, Suburban—At Grade) Each 71,428,053 

S27 Merced Downtown Station (UPRR N/S 7-8, BNSF N/S 7-8, Urban—At Grade) Each 71,428,053 

S28 

Castle Air Force Base Station (BNSF N/S 6-7, BNSF Castle 1-2, Suburban—

At Grade) Each 71,428,053 

Intermediate Station (Local Service Option) 

S29 Union City (Shinn) Station (Niles/I-880 4-5, Urban—Aerial) Each 300,146,665 

S30 Newark Station (Caltrain 2-3, Suburban—Aerial) Each 300,146,665 

S31 Pleasanton (BART) Station (I-680/580/UPRR 1-2, Suburban—Aerial) Each 297,325,543 

S32 Pleasanton (I-680/Bernal) Station (UPRR 3-4, Suburban—At Grade) Each 58,118,585 

S33 Livermore 1 (I-580) Station (I-680/580/UPRR 3-4, Undeveloped—Aerial) Each 132,402,375 

S34 Livermore 2 (Downtown) Station (UPRR 5-6, Urban—At Grade) Each 58,758,963 

S35 Livermore 2 (Downtown) Station (UPRR 5-6, Urban—Aerial) Each 300,146,665 

S36 Livermore (Greenville Road/I-580) Station (I-680/580/UPRR 4-5, 

Undeveloped—Aerial) Each 140,813,820 

S37 Livermore (Greenville Road/UPRR) Station Each 58,118,585 

S38 Tracy 1 (Downtown) Station (UPRR 10-11, Urban—Aerial) Each 300,146,665 

S39 Tracy 2 (Existing ACE) Station (SUPRR 2-3, Suburban—Aerial) Each 300,146,665 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 4 Costs 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 4-14

As defined in Chapter 2, the HST Network Alternatives represent different ways to combine HST 

Alignment Alternatives and station location options to implement the HST system in the study region. 

The estimated capital costs for each network alternative are presented in Table 4.2-3. The breakdown of 

these costs by the alignment alternatives and alignment segments that comprise each network alternative 

are presented in Appendix 4-C. 

Because of the variations in alignment alternatives and station location options being considered in the 

Program EIR/EIS process, there is a potential range of capital costs associated with any given network 

alternative. 

The capital costs have been categorized into discrete cost elements. In general, the capital costs were 

estimated by determining the appropriate unit costs for the identified cost elements and the cost element 

quantities from conceptual alignment alternative and station location option plans prepared for each 

alignment alternative (Appendices 2-E, 2-F, and 2-G). Each cost element is defined in Appendix 4-D, 

along with the methods, assumptions, and description of the unit cost applied in each case. 

The unit costs were reviewed as part of previous studies by HST owners, operators, and manufacturers, 

various agencies, and consultants. Formal peer reviews of the Authority’s Corridor Evaluation were also 

conducted. Application of these unit costs and assumptions is consistent with past studies for the HST, 

including the Business Plan, and provides sufficient detail for the comparison of alignment alternatives 

and station location options at this program level. The unit costs for all individual elements are presented 

in Table 4.2-4. The unit costs were adjusted to account for inflation from September 2003 to November 

2006, based on the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index Report (McGraw-Hill Construction 

ENR 2007). Unit costs for the Oakland to San Francisco transbay tube, Dumbarton rail bridge (highbridge and low-bridge options), and Dumbarton tube were obtained from MTC as part of the Regional 

Rail planning studies. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 4.2-3 

High-Speed Train Network Alternatives Cost Summary (in 2006 dollars) 

Stations 

Segment 

Length 

Average Total Cost 

(dollars) Co

No. Network Alternative Km Miles Per Km Per Mile Segment St

A ALTAMONT PASS 1 San Francisco and San Jose 

Termini 

S2, S5, S6, S7, S12, S15, S21, S25, S27 

327.24 203.34 38,880,394 62,571,929 10,972,862,793 1,750,4

2 Oakland and San Jose 

Termini 

S3, S5, S9, S10, S15, S21, S25, S27 

293.17 182.16 34,208,979 55,054,015 8,575,425,642 1,453,4

3 San Francisco, Oakland, and 

San Jose Termini 

S2, S3, S5, S6, S7, S9, S10, S15, S21, S25, S27 

388.12 241.16 38,787,079 62,421,753 12,717,546,470 2,336,3

4 San Jose Terminus S5, S12, S15, S21, S25, 

S27 

257.78 160.18 29,863,432 48,060,536 6,830,741,966 867,57

5 San Francisco Terminus S2, S6, S7, S11, S15, 

S21, S25, S27 

308.27 191.55 35,729,340 57,500,799 9,295,774,550 1,718,6

6 Oakland Terminus S3, S9, S10, S15, S21, 

S25, S27 

274.97 170.86 29,700,584 47,798,456 6,898,337,399 1,268,4

7 Union City Terminus S10, S15, S21, S25, S27 254.16 157.93 23,423,990 37,697,258 5,357,942,113 595,498 San Francisco, and San 

Jose—via SF Peninsula 

S2, S5, S6, S8, S11, S15, S21, S25, S27 

343.27 213.30 36,606,277 58,912,092 10,662,279,160 1,903,7

9 San Francisco, San Jose, 

and Oakland—with no San Francisco Bay Crossing 

S2, S3, S5, S6, S7, S9, S10, S15, S21, S25, S27 

393.81 244.70 36,713,165 59,084,112 12,121,598,757 2,336,3

10 Oakland, and San 

Francisco—via Transbay Tube 

S2, S3, S9, S10, S15, S21, S25, S27 

289.11 179.64 44,670,632 71,890,413 10,860,031,797 2,054,6

11 San Jose, Oakland and San 

Francisco—via Transbay Tube 

S2, S3, S5, S9, S10, S15, S21, S25, S27 

320.44 199.11 46,114,588 74,214,235 12,537,120,041 2,239,7

P PACHECO PASS 1 San Francisco and San Jose 

Termini 

S2, S5, S6, S8, S23, S26, S27 

430.55 267.53 28,771,881 46,303,853 11,028,569,783 1,359,0

2 Oakland and San Jose 

Termini 

S3, S5, S9, S10, S23, S26, S27 

413.40 256.87 27,973,967 45,019,736 10,345,348,109 1,218,9
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Stations 

Segment 

Length 

Average Total Cost 

(dollars) Co

No. Network Alternative Km Miles Per Km Per Mile Segment St

3 San Francisco, Oakland and 

San Jose Termini 

S2, S3, S5, S6, S8, S9, S10, S23, S26, S27 

498.26 309.60 32,098,678 51,657,815 13,891,521,223 2,101,8

4 San Jose Terminus S5, S23, S26, S27 343.04 213.15 23,200,433 37,337,478 7,482,396,668 476,165 San Jose, San Francisco and 

Oakland—via Transbay Tube 

S2, S3, S5, S6, S7, S23, S26, S27 

444.69 276.31 38,140,438 61,381,085 14,990,264,181 1,970,2

6 San Jose, Oakland and San 

Francisco—via Transbay Tube 

S2, S3, S5, S9, S10, S23, S26, S27 

427.54 265.66 38,154,198 61,403,229 14,307,042,507 2,005,2

PA PACHECO PASS WITH ALTAMONT PASS (LOCAL 

SERVICE) 

1 San Francisco and San Jose 

Termini 

S2, S5, S6, S8, S23, S25, S27, S29, S32, S38 

545.83 339.16 33,558,079 54,006,494 16,299,474,324 2,017,4

2 Oakland and San Jose 

Termini 

S3, S5, S9, S10, S23, S25, S27, S32, S38 

512.50 318.45 31,135,039 50,106,988 14,379,523,442 1,577,2

3 San Francisco, Oakland and 

San Jose Termini (with Dumbarton Bridge) 

S2, S3, S5, S6, S8, S9, S10, S23, S25, S27 

629.32 391.04 34,942,461 56,234,439 19,888,148,879 2,101,8

4 San Francisco, Oakland and 

San Jose Termini (without Dumbarton Bridge) 

S2, S3, S5, S6, S8, S9, S10, S23, S25, S27, S32, S38 

580.81 360.90 35,098,797 56,486,038 17,925,696,556 2,460,0

5 San Jose Terminus S5, S12, S23, S25, S27, 

S32, S38 

460.34 286.04 29,237,801 47,053,679 12,467,937,131 991,30
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 4 Costs 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 4-17

Table 4.2-4 

High-Speed Train Unit Cost (in November 2006 Dollars) 

Cost Elements Unit 

Unit Cost 

(dollars) 

Alignment Cost 

Track Items 

 Double Track Section—Total Kilometers 

 1 Double Track Section—At Grade Kilometers 993,167 

 2 Double Track Section—On Structure Kilometers 1,878,243 

 3 Double Track Section—In Tunnel or Subway Kilometers 1,878,243 

 4 Double Track Section—In Trench Kilometers 1,878,243 

 Single Track Section—Total Kilometers 

 5 Single Track Section—At Grade Kilometers 496,583 

 6 Single Track Section—On Structure Kilometers 939,121 

 7 Single Track Sections—In Tunnel or Subway Kilometers 939,121 

 8 Single Track Section—In Trench Kilometers 939,121 

 9 Freight Double Track—At Grade Kilometers 993,167 

 10 Freight Single Track—At Grade Kilometers 496,583 

Earthwork Items 

 1 Site Preparation—Undeveloped Hectares 12,081 

 2 Total Cut Meters3 9 

 3 Total Fill Meters3 9 

 4 Borrow Meters3 13 

 5 Spoil Meters3 0 

 4 Landscape/Erosion Control Hectares 8,075 

 5 Security Fencing (Both Sides of R/W) Kilometers 101,733 

 6 Special Drainage Facilities 5% of Earthwork Cost 

Structures, Tunnels, Walls 

 1 Standard Structure Kilometers 13,733,933 

 2 High Structure Kilometers 16,480,720 

 3 Long Span Structure Kilometers 37,577,568 

 4 Waterway Crossing—Primary Kilometers 28,876,734 

 5 Waterway Crossing—Secondary (Irrigation/Canal Crossing) Kilometers 23,119,226 

 6 Twin Single Track Drill & Blast (<6 Miles) Kilometers 75,040,254 

 7 Twin Single Track TBM (<6 Miles) Kilometers 55,464,535 

 8 Twin Single Track TBM w/3rd Tube (>6 Miles) Kilometers 78,846,643 

 9 Double Track Drill & Blast Kilometers 83,740,573 

 10 Double Track Mined (Soft Soil) Kilometers 96,247,282 

 11 Seismic Chamber (Drill & Blast/Mined) Each 94,803,899 

 12 Crossovers Each 94,803,899 

 13 Cut & Cover Double Track Tunnel Kilometers 48,123,641 

 14 Trench Short Kilometers 49,668,587 

 15 Trench Long Kilometers 39,272,836 

 16 Mechanical & Electrical for Tunnels Kilometers 1,931,362 

 17 Retaining Walls Kilometers 4,399,945 

 18 Containment Walls Kilometers 1,500,559 

 19 Single Track Cut and Cover Subway Kilometers 30,077,276 

Grade Separations 

 1 Street Overcrossing HSR—(Urban) Each 17,167,417 

 2 Street Overcrossing HSR—(Suburban) Each 6,485,469 

 3 Street Overcrossing HSR—(Undeveloped) Each 1,093,628 

 4 Street Undercrossing HSR—(Urban) Each 17,930,413 

 5 Street Undercrossing HSR—(Suburban) Each 6,866,967 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 4 Costs 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 4-18

Cost Elements Unit 

Unit Cost 

(dollars) 

 6 Street Undercrossing HSR—(Undeveloped) Each 1,157,211 

 7 Street Bridging HSR Trench Each 

 8 Minor crossing closures Each 178,032 

Rail and Utility Relocation 

 1 Single Track Relocation (Temporary) Kilometers 1,271,661 

 2 Single Track Relocation (Permanent) Kilometers 1,271,661 

 3 Single Track Removal Kilometers 63,372 

 4 Major Utility Relocations—Dense Urban Kilometers 890,162 

 5 Major Utility Relocations—Urban Kilometers 680,338 

 6 Major Utility Relocations—Dense Suburban Kilometers 476,873 

 7 Major Utility Relocations—Suburban Kilometers 273,407 

 8 Major Utility Relocations—Undeveloped Kilometers 13,988 

Right–of-Way Items 

 1 Right-of-Way Required for Each Segment 

 Dense Urban Hectares 4,106,412 

 Urban Hectares 2,737,608 

 Dense Suburban Hectares 1,368,804 

 Suburban Hectares 479,081 

 Undeveloped Hectares 342,201 

Environmental Mitigation 

 Environmental Mitigation 3% of Line Cost 

System Elements 

 1 Signaling (ATC) Kilometers 845,654 

 2 Communications (w/Fiber Optic Backbone) Kilometers 699,413 

 3 Wayside Protection System Kilometers 67,144 

Electrification Items 

 1 Traction Power Supply Kilometers 432,365 

 2 Traction Power Distribution Kilometers 806,233 

Program Implementation Costs (per screening) 

 Program Implementation Costs 25.5% of Total Cost and 

Procurement 

Contingencies (per screening) 

 Contingencies 25% of Total Construction Cost 

Total Construction 

Total Construction and Right-of-Way (includes environmental mitigation) 

Grand Total 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 4 Costs 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 4-19

4.3 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

O&M costs were developed for each of the HST Network Alternatives for comparative purposes. The 

annual O&M costs of the HST Alignment Alternatives and Network Alternatives are based on daily train 

miles, operating speed, travel time, station configuration, maintenance and storage facilities, and 

assumed operating frequencies. Daily train miles, operating speeds, and travel times are all outputs of 

the California high-speed rail simulation model as documented in the operations report prepared as part 

of the statewide Program EIR/EIS. (Parsons Brinckerhoff 2003.) 

A. OPERATING SPEEDS 

For the HST system, higher operating speed (150–220 mph [241–354 kph]) are proposed for areas 

where the alignment is less constrained, and lower operating speeds (less than 125 mph [201 kph]) 

are proposed in the more heavily developed areas. Local and semi-express services would not 

necessarily reach the maximum speeds on a given segment. Figure 4.3-1 shows the maximum 

speeds that could be attained on the various alignment alternatives. 

B. TRAVEL TIMES 

Table 4.3-1 shows the optimal express trip times between several example city pairs. These times 

represent the estimated travel times between city pairs without interference from other trains or 

stops at intermediate stations. A complete listing of station-to-station travel times is included as 

Appendix 4-E. Express travel times are possible on the proposed HST system because all 

intermediate stations would have four tracks, with two through-tracks for express service. 

Table 4.3-1 

 Optimal Express Trip Times between City Pairs (220 mph [350 kph] maximum speed) 

ALTAMONT 

Travel Time 

(hh:mm) 

PACHECO 

Travel Time 

(hh:mm) SAN 

FRANCISCO OAKLAND 

SAN 

JOSÉ SACRAMENTO FRESNO 

LOS 

ANGELES 

SAN 

DIEGO 

San 

Francisco N/A N/A N/A 01:06 01:18 02:36 03:54 San 

Francisco

Oakland N/A N/A N/A 00:53 01:04 02:23 03:40 Oakland

San José 00:30 00:22 N/A 00:49 01:01 02:19 03:37 San José

Sacramento 01:47 01:38 01:18 N/A 00:59 02:17 03:35 Sacramento

Fresno 01:20 01:12 00:51 00:53 N/A 01:24 02:42 Fresno

Los Angeles 02:38 02:30 02:09 02:11 01:24 N/A 01:18 Los Angeles

San Diego 03:56 03:48 03:27 03:29 02:42 01:18 N/A San Diego

San 

Francisco Oakland San Jose Sacramento Fresno Los Angeles 

San 

Diego N/A 

N/A Not Applicable Altamont Pass Test 

Alignment Pacheco Pass Test Alignment 

Note: Based on Altamont Pass Test Alignment B (I-580/UPRR) and Pacheco Pass Test Alignment B (Caltrain/Gilroy/Henry 

Miller/UPRR). 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 4 Costs 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 4-20

C. MAINTENANCE FACILITIES AND STORAGE YARDS 

The train sets used for the HST system would need to be maintained at several points along the HST 

corridor. To estimate maintenance costs, it was assumed that the overall statewide HST system 

would have four maintenance facilities. Three of these facilities would be the primary locations for 

cleaning, servicing, inspecting, and maintaining the vehicles, as well as storing the trains overnight. 

A fourth facility would serve as a heavy maintenance facility. In addition to these maintenance 

facilities, each of the terminal stations would have some light maintenance and cleaning capabilities. 

The cost of these support facilities is not included in specific segments or network alternatives. 

These costs are considered in total for the HST system. 

D. CONCEPTUAL OPERATING PLAN 

The service levels tested in the ridership demand model were 124 trains per day in each direction 

(i.e., north and south) (248 total), assuming 1,175 seats per train. The service type and stopping 

patterns are summarized below. 

• Express (16 trains per day in each direction): Trains running from Sacramento, San Jose, or San 

Francisco to Los Angeles and San Diego with one intermediate stop between origin and 

destination. 

• Semi-Express (34 trains per day in each direction): Trains running between similar endpoints as 

the express, with a limited number of intermediate stops. 

• Suburban-Express (33 trains per day in each direction): Trains running express between major 

metropolitan regions but stopping frequently in these regions. 

• Local (36 trains per day in each direction): Trains stopping at all intermediate stops, with 

potential for skipping stops to improve service, depending on demand. 

• Regional (5 trains per day in each direction): Trains running locally that begin or end in the 

Central Valley, operating mostly during commute hours. 

Many HST Network Alternatives studied in this document involve dividing points, such as just north of 

San Jose for the Pacheco route to serve both sides of the Bay Area, or east of Pleasanton for the 

Altamont route to serve San Francisco, San Jose, and/or Oakland. Other dividing points exist in the 

HST system, including one in the Merced area and one south of Los Angeles Union Station. The 

conceptual HST operating plan assumes separate and distinct trains operating on all defined routes. 

This would mean that some trains from Los Angeles or Sacramento would go to San Francisco and 

some to San Jose, while others might go to Oakland. Although it is possible to create long multiunit 

trains and physically separate the units at specific points on the route to serve more than one 

terminus from a single origin, this is considered undesirable for the reasons discussed below. 

Additionally, it is unlikely that the application of such operational practices would benefit one 

alignment alternative over another. 

Some HST systems physically separate trainsets (“splitting and joining trains”) at some point on the 

route. However, the percentage of HST trains actually using this practice worldwide is very small. In 

France, about 10% of the TGV trainsets are physically split, whereas in Japan the percentage is even 

smaller. HST trainsets generally are not split during peak hours or at peak traffic points. For 

example, the TGVs that split in southwest France have already served the major Paris-Bordeaux 

market, and do not add time to the passengers on this critical city-pair. The Paris-Bordeaux 

passengers in the other direction also do not lose time waiting for the trains to be combined into one, 

since they board after consolidation. The mini-Shinkansen that splits to Yamagata, does so after the 

major stations at Fukushima and Sendai. The Thalys HST does not split until after Brussels 

passengers get off. The HST splits are generally done in places where the traffic demands are low—

not on the main trunk line between the major markets. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Figure 4.3-1

Maximum Speeds Attained on Alignment 

Alternatives

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 4 Costs 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 4-21

It is unlikely that the application of splitting and joining trains would benefit one alignment alternative 

over the other. Practically, only one such train split could be accomplished for each scheduled train 

operation. Limited and appropriate splitting of trainsets could be used for either the Altamont Pass or 

Pacheco Pass alternatives (at Fresno or Los Angeles for example). A key operational benefit of the 

Pacheco Pass is that it minimizes the number of HST network branches and splits. 

E. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE ANNUAL COSTS 

The HST projected annual O&M costs are based on the train miles and frequencies assumed in the 

ridership forecasting analysis (as described in Chapter 2) (Cambridge Systematics 2007) and the unit 

costs applied in the statewide Program EIR/EIS (California High-Speed Rail Authority and Federal 

Railroad Administration 2005). A cost estimation method and unit costs were developed for the 

previous corridor evaluation study to provide an order of magnitude cost estimate for HST service on 

particular alignments. This method was peer reviewed by the operators of several HST systems, as 

discussed above in Section 4.2, and found to be adequate for this level of analysis. The same 

method has been applied in this analysis. Table 4.3-2 presents the operating and maintenance costs 

on a per-train-mile and per-train-kilometer basis summarized by each operating and maintenance 

cost element. 

Table 4.3-3 summarizes the systemwide operations and maintenance costs according to the 

alignment alternatives and station location options included in each network alternative. The costs 

are based primarily on length and frequency of service. 

Table 4.3-2 

Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs (in 2006 dollars) 

Item Dollars per Train Mile Annual Cost 

(million dollars) 

Station Services 0.83 24.6 

Insurance 2.02 60.1 

General Support 1.45 43.3 

Maintenance of Way 4.31 128.5 

Train Operations 10.05 299.5 

Equipment Maintenance 11.79 351.2 

Marketing and Reservations 2.12 63.0 

Power 7.11 211.9 

Total per Year 1.182 

Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff 2007. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 4 Costs 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 4-22

Table 4.3-3 

 Annual Costs of Operating and Maintaining High-Speed Train Infrastructure (in 2006 dollars) 

 

 

Network Alternative 

Length Systemwide 

O&M 

Km Miles Costs (dollars) 

A ALTAMONT PASS 

1 San Francisco and San Jose Termini 327.24 203.34 1,099,301,000 

2 Oakland and San Jose Termini 293.17 182.16 1,085,313,000 

3 San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose Termini 388.12 241.16 1,097,940,000 

4 San Jose Terminus 257.78 160.18 1,076,391,000 

5 San Francisco Terminus 308.27 191.55 1,124,271,000 

6 Oakland Terminus 274.97 170.86 1,092,689,000 

7 Union City Terminus 254.16 157.93 1,072,954,000 

8 San Francisco and San Jose—via SF Peninsula 343.27 213.30 1,115,288,000 

9 

San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland—with no San 

Francisco Bay Crossing 393.81 244.70 1,122,869,000 

10 Oakland and San Francisco—via Transbay Tube 289.11 179.64 1,106,098,000 

11 

San Jose, Oakland and San Francisco—via Transbay 

Tube 320.44 199.11 1,092,654,000 

P PACHECO PASS 

1 San Francisco and San Jose Termini 430.55 267.53 1,182,186,000 

2 Oakland and San Jose Termini 413.40 256.87 1,165,923,000 

3 San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose Termini 498.26 309.60 1,174,114,0000 

4 San Jose Terminus 343.04 213.15 1,099,200,000 

5 

San Jose, San Francisco, and Oakland—via Transbay 

Tube 444.69 276.31 1,195,595,000 

6 

San Jose, Oakland, and San Francisco—via Transbay 

Tube 427.54 265.66 1,179,332,000 

PA PACHECO PASS WITH ALTAMONT PASS (LOCAL SERVICE) 

1 San Francisco and San Jose Termini 545.83 339.16 1,171,052,000 

2 Oakland and San Jose Termini 512.50 318.45 1,139,579,000 

3 

San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose Termini 

(without Dumbarton Bridge) 580.81 360.90 1,179,011,000 

4 San Jose Terminus 460.34 286.04 1,130,210,000 

 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 5-1

5 ECONOMIC GROWTH AND RELATED IMPACTS 

5.1 Introduction 

Transportation investments can lead to reduced travel time and cost, improved accessibility to regions or 

parts of regions, and reduced accidents or air pollution. These effects contribute to economic growth by 

allowing time and money previously spent on travel to be used for other purposes, attracting businesses 

and residents to places with increased accessibility or improved quality of life, and reducing overall costs 

to society. The population and employment growth that result make up the growth-inducing effects of 

transportation investments. Growth can contribute to additional effects on human and natural resources 

beyond those directly attributable to the changes in the transportation system. These effects are known 

as indirect impacts. 

This chapter presents an analysis of the potential growth-inducing effects and related indirect impacts of 

the alternatives considered in the Bay Area to Central Valley Program EIR/EIS. The intent of the analysis 

is to understand the extent of potential statewide, regional, and local growth effects in terms of 

population and employment change and land consumption associated with these changes. This section 

identifies and describes the following. 

• Existing population and employment conditions both for the Bay Area to Central Valley study area 

and the entire state. 

• Methodology and data sources used to assess potential growth-induced effects. 

• Potential employment and population changes associated with each system alternative. 

• Urban area size needed to accommodate projected population and employment growth associated 

with each alternative. 

• Potential impacts related to growth and development, and potential strategies for managing these 

impacts; 

• Potential for employment and population concentration in the vicinity of HST stations. 

• Differences between the HST alignment and station options in the Bay Area to Central Valley study 

area. 

5.2 Affected Environment 

5.2.1 Existing Conditions 

Over the last 30 years, California’s population has grown from 20 million to more than 36 million people. 

At the same time, more than 10 million additional jobs have been created in California. Starting with the 

gold rush in 1849, California has been continuously experiencing rapid population and economic growth. 

Distance from eastern urban areas, location on the Pacific Rim, an abundance of natural resources, a 

desirable climate, and many other factors have contributed to California’s growth into the most populous 

state in the nation. 

California’s economy is one of the most diverse in the world. Manufacturing, wholesale and retail trade, 

services, and government each account for more than 10% of total employment, and together have 

consistently made up more than three-quarters of total employment over the past 30 years. California’s 

economy, like the nation’s, has become less focused on production of goods and more focused on 

services, entertainment, and trade. Three service-sector industries—business, social, and legal—are 

among the 10 fastest-growing industries in California, with business services’ contribution to gross state 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 5 Economic Growth and Related Impacts

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 5-2

product (GSP) growing by 1,400% since 1977. The overall services sector has grown by more than 

800% since 1977. The finance, insurance, and real estate (FIRE) sectors and services sector have 

accounted for nearly one-half of the growth in GSP since 1977, with the combined contribution of these 

groups growing from 33% to 46% of the total economy in California. 

As of 2005, California was estimated to have about 36.1 million people and 20.9 million jobs. Table 5.2-1 

lists year 2005 population and employment totals, as well as an estimate of current urbanization 

magnitudes for select locations in 2002. Data are presented for major regions in California as well as 

individual counties in the Bay Area to Central Valley corridor. As expected, the inner Bay Area counties, 

Sacramento County, and Southern California have the highest levels of land considered to be urbanized, 

while less than 10% of land in most other counties is at urbanized densities. 

Table 5.2-1 

Existing Population, Employment, and Urbanized Densities 

County 

Population

Year 2005 

Employment

Year 2005 

Acreage of Land at 

Urbanized Densities 

for Employment 

and/or Population 

Year 2002 

Percent of 

Land Area at 

Urbanized 

Densities 

Year 2002 

Alameda County 1,451,065 953,937 141,654 30 

Contra Costa County 1,017,644 508,854 142,467 31 

San Francisco County 741,025 779,357 23,277 78 

San Mateo County 701,175 522,830 70,869 25 

Santa Clara County 1,705,158 1,323,920 184,481 22 

Study Area—Bay Area 5,616,067 4,088,898 562,748 29 

Fresno County 878,089 435,769 96,977 3 

Madera County 142,530 56,892 23,255 2 

Merced County 242,249 87,365 31,712 3 

Sacramento County 1,363,423 805,978 157,101 25 

San Joaquin County 664,796 274,155 74,250 8 

Stanislaus County 505,492 224,491 55,426 6 

Study Area—Central 

Valley 

3,796,579 1,884,650 438,721 12 

Core Study Area 9,412,646 5,973,548 1,001,469 22 

Southern Sacramento Valley 658,108 456,834 116,980 4 

Southern San Joaquin Valley 1,311,579 576,935 189,603 2 

Southern California 16,843,742 9,290,841 1,530,221 25 

San Diego County 2,936,609 1,895,002 340,837 13 

Rest of California 4,991,463 2,709,974 3,105,348 6 

Statewide Total 36,154,147 20,903,134 6,284,458 6 

Sources: U.S. Bureau of the Census (population data); MTC/California High-Speed Rail Travel Demand Model 

(employment data); and Economic Growth Effects of the System Alternatives for the Program Environmental 

Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement, California High-Speed Rail Authority, July 2003. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 5 Economic Growth and Related Impacts

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 5-3

5.2.2 Study Area and Alternatives 

For the purposes of the growth inducement analysis, California’s 58 counties were grouped into seven 

geographic regions that would contain components of the statewide HST system1

: 

• Core Study Area—Bay Area 

− Alameda County 

− Contra Costa County 

− San Francisco County 

− San Mateo County 

− Santa Clara County 

• Core Study Area—Central Valley 

− Fresno County 

− Madera County 

− Merced County 

− Stanislaus County 

− San Joaquin County 

− Sacramento County 

• Southern San Joaquin Valley: Kern, Kings, and Tulare Counties 

• Southern California: Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties 

• San Diego County 

• Southern Sacramento Valley: El Dorado, Placer, Sutter, Yolo, and Yuba Counties 

• Rest of California: Remaining 34 counties not included in any of the other 15 regions. 

The regions reflect the economic interdependence among some counties and relate to widely recognized 

geographic regions in California. The five counties that compose the core study area in the Bay Area 

(Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara) were kept as separate economic 

modeling regions in order to better simulate the population and employment growth effects for each 

system alternative. A similar process was followed for the six counties that compose the core study area 

in the Central Valley. The counties grouped into Southern Sacramento Valley, Southern San Joaquin 

Valley, Southern California, and San Diego regions were gathered based on economic relationships 

between the counties; with the exception of the Southern Sacramento Valley, all of these regions were 

identified for direct HST service in the Final Statewide Program EIR/EIS. The counties gathered as rest of 

California would not be directly served by any of the HST Network Alternative. The county groupings 

that compose these regions are displayed in Figure 5.2-1. 

This analysis of potential induced growth and indirect impacts considered two HST Network Alternatives 

as described in Chapter 2, “Alternatives.” The analysis considered the No Project/No Action (No Project) 

Alternative, which represents the region’s (and state’s) transportation system (highway, air, and 

conventional rail) as it is today and with implementation of programs or projects that are in regional 

transportation plans and have identified funds for implementation by 2030, and two HST Network 

Alternatives (one each for Pacheco and Altamont). 

 

1

 All counties that would have an improvement under the HST Alternative were grouped into one of the 15 core regions. Rest of 

California includes all counties without an improvement under the HST Alternative. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 5 Economic Growth and Related Impacts

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 5-4

Quantitative analysis of induced growth and secondary impacts was performed on two specific HST 

Network Alternatives, one for the Altamont Pass and one for Pacheco Pass. For both HST Network 

Alternatives, quantitative modeling was performed using the alignments shown in Table 2.5-1 for the San 

Francisco and San Jose Termini because prior studies conducted by the HSRA suggested that these 

termini are likely to produce the highest system ridership, and hence the highest potential for induced 

growth and secondary impacts. Within the core study area, the following HST stations were included in 

the Network Alternatives used for quantitative modeling: 

• Pacheco Pass: Transbay Transit Center; Millbrae-SFO; Redwood City; San Jose (Diridon Station); 

Morgan Hill; Gilroy; Merced (SP Downtown); and Modesto (Amtrak Briggsmore). 

• Altamont Pass: Transbay Transit Center, Millbrae-SFO, Redwood City, Fremont (Warm Springs), San 

Jose (Diridon Station), Pleasanton (I-680/Bernal Road), Tracy (SP), Modesto (SP Downtown), and 

Merced (SP Downtown). 

The potential induced growth effects and secondary impacts of other alignment and station options were 

assessed qualitatively by comparing travel demand model results, reviewing comparable results from the 

Final Statewide Program EIR/EIS2

, and professional experience. 

5.2.3 Analysis Years 

The growth-inducement analysis was conducted for the year 2030, which provides a long time horizon to 

consider full market response after completion of the proposed HST Network Alternatives, as well as a 

better basis for understanding the full range of possible secondary impacts. 

The extent of potential growth-inducing effects in any given year is sensitive to the length of time over 

which changes in economic conditions are assumed to occur. In terms of this analysis, the number of 

jobs or people that would be generated in an area in 2030 is sensitive to the year in which HST service is 

assumed first to be available in that area. For both HST Network Alternatives, HST service along a trunk 

line between the Bay Area and LAUS was assumed to begin on January 1, 2016. Service to Irvine, San 

Diego and Sacramento was assumed to begin on January 1, 2019 for all alignment options. 

5.3 Potential Growth-Inducing Effects 

5.3.1 Methodology and Data Sources 

The potential economic growth stimulus of a transportation investment can be measured not only in 

terms of its overall magnitude (number of new jobs and people), but also in terms of its relative 

distribution (location of new jobs and people) among different geographic areas. In economic terms, this 

distinction is the generative (i.e., creates growth) versus distributive (i.e., redistributes existing 

population and infrastructure) dimension of growth. Transportation investments, such as airports, 

highways, transit, and HST, compose just one of many factors that determine how much growth will 

occur and whether it will be generative or distributive in nature. Other major growth factors, such as 

education level of residents, housing affordability, and land availability, interact in complex and 

sometimes unpredictable ways for communities, regions, and states. Land use planning and zoning, 

enterprise development zones, and infrastructure funding also can influence both the magnitude and the 

distribution of economic growth. 

 

2 Economic Growth Effects of the System Alternatives for the Program Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact 

Statement, California High-Speed Rail Authority, July 2003. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Figure 5.2-1

Regions and Counties

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 5 Economic Growth and Related Impacts

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 5-5

A. SCOPE OF ANALYSIS 

The growth inducement results presented in this section were developed using the TREDIS3

macroeconomic simulation model, which estimates the economic impact of transportation 

investments on business output, business attraction, employment, and population. Transportation 

demand, travel times and costs by mode for each system alternative were assembled by the newly 

developed California Statewide High-Speed Rail Travel Demand Model, with additional transportation 

performance information synthesized from the Final Statewide Program EIR/EIS. 

The analysis process considered the potential effects that changes in transportation congestion and 

delay between existing conditions and future years would have on the state’s economic growth. The 

process also modeled several dimensions of growth and spatial reallocation that could occur under 

any of the alignment alternatives and considered many possible impacts of the proposed HST 

Alignment Alternatives on jobs, population, and land development, including the following: 

• Increased employment because of attraction of new businesses to California, or expansion of 

businesses already located in the state. 

• Reallocation of employment because of changes in location of businesses already located in 

California. 

• Population growth associated with business attraction, expansion, and spatial shift. 

• Shift in residential population between counties (with fixed employment location) as a result of 

changed accessibility because of the Modal or HST Network Alternatives (i.e., long-distance 

commutes). 

• Shift in employment for retail and personal service establishments that follow shifts in residential 

location. 

• Changes in densification and development patterns both with and without the presence of a HST 

station. 

• Allocation of population and employment between currently developed and undeveloped areas in 

each county. 

• Consumption of currently undeveloped land to house projected population and employment 

growth. 

B. KEY DATA SOURCES 

The growth-inducement analysis required a baseline forecast of future population and employment 

for the 2030 year. This baseline forecast represented the No Project Alternative for the analysis year, 

and was also used as an economic modeling input to estimate incremental population and 

employment changes of the HST Network Alternatives. The analysis of potential induced growth and 

indirect effects necessitated that county-level population and employment forecasts be developed for 

2030, with employment forecasts broken out by one-digit standard industrial classification (SIC) 

codes. Baseline population forecasts for each county were taken from the California Department of 

Finance. Baseline employment forecasts were taken from the California Statewide High-Speed Rail 

Travel Demand Model and aggregated to the county level. 

 

3

 The Transportation Economic Development Impact System (TREDIS) model is designed specifically to evaluate the full economic 

development impacts of multimodal transportation investments. For this analysis, TREDIS was run in conjunction with the ReDYN 

economic modeling system to capture full dynamic economic feedback. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 5 Economic Growth and Related Impacts

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 5-6

C. METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW 

The analytical process to estimate the growth-inducing effects of the alternatives required significant 

modeling tools and data. Nonetheless, the entire process, depicted in Figure 5.3-1, can be 

summarized in a few key steps. 

• Define transportation investments: This analysis considers the HST Network Alternatives 

described in Chapter 2. For this analysis, the future baseline conditions are assumed to 

represent the No Project Alternative, and the economic modeling process is used to forecast the 

incremental changes associated with the implementation of the Altamont and Pacheco network 

alternatives. 

• Estimate transportation benefits: Using results from the California Statewide High-Speed Rail 

Travel Demand Model, benefits such as reduced travel times and/or costs of each alternative for 

air, highway, and conventional rail trips were estimated using travel demand model results. 

Congestion, pollution, and crash reduction benefits as well as accessibility benefits were directly 

estimated using travel demand model results for the two HST Network Alternatives in comparison 

to the No Project Alternative. Mode shift benefits arising from the introduction of HST service 

were estimated by scaling benefits calculated for the statewide program EIR/EIS using HST 

ridership and other output from the current travel demand model4

. 

• Estimate direct economic impacts: Direct economic impacts, which are generated from the 

transportation benefits of each alternative, generally fall into one of three categories. 

− Business cost savings: Reductions in travel time and/or cost for long-distance business travelers 

and commuters benefiting from the transportation improvements. 

− Business attraction effects: New and relocated firms taking advantage of market accessibility 

improvements provided through transportation investments. 

− Amenity (quality of life) changes: Non-business travel time and/or cost benefits and other 

societal benefits improve the attractiveness of a region. 

• Determine total regional economic impacts for regions and counties: The direct economic impacts 

all have the potential to create additional multiplier effects on the regional and statewide 

economies of California. Total regional impacts were estimated using the TREDIS-ReDyn 

macroeconomic simulation model. For this analysis, total economic impacts include population 

and industry-specific employment, with impacts forecasted for the 11 counties in the core study 

area and the remaining five multi-county regions. 

• Forecast land consumption: County-level population and employment were allocated throughout 

each county to determine the infill potential and magnitude of land needed to accommodate 

population and employment growth for each alternative. This analysis, which was conducted for 

the 11 counties in the core study area, was driven by three key pieces of information. 

− Local land use, zoning, and employment data. 

− National and international experience with station-area development trends related to HST and 

fixed guideway transit. 

− County-level industry employment and population estimates. 

• Assess Potential for Secondary Impacts: The population, employment, and land consumption 

forecasts for each system alternative were reviewed to characterize the nature and magnitude of 

potential secondary impacts on the human and natural environment. For resource topics in 

 

4 Economic Growth Effects of the System Alternatives for the Program Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact 

Statement, California High-Speed Rail Authority, Appendix F, July 2003. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Figure 5.3-1

Methodology Overview

Transportation

Investment

Direct Economic

Impacts

Business

Cost Savings

Business

Attraction

Ameni ty/

Quality

of Life

Total Regional

Economic

Impacts

County-l evel

Employment

and

Population

Land 

Consumption

- Travel Time

and Cost

- Mobility

- Accessibili ty

Transportation

Benefits

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 5 Economic Growth and Related Impacts

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 5-7

which specific spatial information was available, a GIS-based analysis was conducted to estimate 

the quantity of resources in each of the 11 core study area counties that could be affected by 

future urbanization patterns for each system alternative. 

Essentially, this land consumption analysis provided an estimate of the population and employment 

growth that can fit within the currently urbanized areas of each county (i.e., infill potential), and 

additional acreage of currently undeveloped land that would need to be converted to urbanized 

densities to accommodate any remaining growth. Estimates of land needed to accommodate 

employment uses were developed using a statistical analysis based on current development patterns 

in California, adjusted to reflect expected densification trends over time.5

 The California Urbanization 

and Biodiversity Analysis (CURBA) model was used to allocate population growth to various locations 

in each county and to predict land consumption resulting from residential construction. 

5.3.2 Financing of Alternatives 

In any analysis of proposed public investments, it is important to consider the potential sources of public 

financing and how they may affect future public revenue needs (i.e., government expenditures) and 

consumer spending. The HST Network Alternative is projected to have significant capital costs in excess 

of the costs needed to fund the No Project Alternative. For the purposes of this analysis, it was assumed 

that the total cost of the HST Network Alternative would be funded through revenue sources that would 

not require direct tax increases or significant diversion of general fund revenues. Examples of these 

revenue sources include general obligation bonds,6

 federal grants or loans, existing airport user fees and 

passenger facility charges, private sector participation, local funds (from existing sources), and existing 

state transportation revenue sources (e.g., gas tax, sales tax on gas). The net effect of this assumption 

is that the induced growth and secondary impacts presented in this chapter are in no way influenced by 

whatever financing plan is eventually established for a potential HST system. 

5.3.3 Statewide Comparison of Alternatives 

A. POPULATION 

Statewide population is expected to grow by about 33% between 2005 and 2030 under the No 

Project Alternative (Table 5.3-1). Compared to the No Project Alternative, population growth under 

the Pacheco and Altamont network alternatives will not have a significant difference between them, 

with Pacheco growing an additional 1.4% and Altamont growing an additional 1.3%. Outside the 

core study area, the Southern San Joaquin Valley and San Diego County exhibit noticeable increases 

in population growth rates between the No Project and HST Network Alternatives, with an additional 

5% of growth for the HST Network Alternatives in both regions. Population growth rates are very 

similar between the two HST Network Alternatives outside of the core area, and are nearly 

indistinguishable on a statewide level. 

 

5

 Because this analysis was conducted at the county level, it does not explicitly reflect potential land designation or policy 

constraints that are included in each jurisdiction’s general plan. Rather, the analysis reflects market forces that currently exist and 

are projected to exist in the future for counties of similar location, size, development intensity, and potential HST service. The 

densities that are allowed under zoning and general plan designations are implicitly included in the analysis to the extent that 

existing development patterns and market forces have been influenced by past zoning and general plan decisions. 

6

The debt service on General Fund State Revenue bonds often is paid through a commitment of the general fund revenue with no 

additional tax or other revenue source. A preliminary analysis by the project team suggests that the annual debt service on a 

$10 billion bond may be within the range of the state’s historical and future bonding patterns. While this source of funding does not 

directly increase taxes, it does divert state expenditures from budget items to debt service. Nevertheless, this diversion is not 

assumed in this analysis to result in any significant reduction in state expenditures. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 5 Economic Growth and Related Impacts

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 5-8

Table 5.3-1 

Projected Population Growth Rate by Region 

Sources: U.S. Bureau of the Census; California Department of Finance; Cambridge Systematics 2007. 

In the core study area, population growth rates are very similar among the system alternatives for 

the five Bay Area counties. The HST Network Alternatives have higher population growth rates than 

the No Project Alternative for all five counties, and the Altamont network alternative has the highest 

project growth rate for three of the five counties. The six Central Valley counties in the core study 

area all have population growth rates that greatly exceed the statewide average under the No Project 

Alternative. All six counties have noticeably higher population growth rates for the HST Network 

Alternatives, with Merced and Madera Counties showing the largest numeric difference in growth 

rates between the No Project and HST Network Alternatives; this result also holds for Stanislaus 

County in the Altamont network alternative. As a group, the population growth rate in these Central 

Valley counties is highest for the Altamont network alternative, although Fresno, Madera, and Merced 

Counties actually have slightly higher growth rates for the Pacheco network alternative. 

The greatest population increase is projected between 2005 existing conditions and the 2030 No 

Project Alternative, with relatively small differences in population growth occurring between the No 

Project and HST Network Alternatives. Compared to the No Project Alternative, the population 

growth rates shown in Table 5.3-1 equate to an additional 502,000 people for the Pacheco network 

alternative and 495,000 people for the Altamont network alternative. 

Area

Year 2005 

Population

Growth Rate (Year 2005 to 2030) (%)

No Project 

Alternative 

HST Network Alternative 

Pacheco Altamont 

Alameda County 1,451,065 40.5 41.4 41.6 

Contra Costa County 1,017,644 51.6 52.3 51.9 

San Francisco County 741,025 7.4 9.3 8.1 

San Mateo County 701,175 16.1 17.1 17.9 

Santa Clara County 1,705,158 26.3 28.1 28.8 

Study Area—Bay Area 5,616,067 30.8 32.0 32.2 

Fresno County 878,089 47.8 49.7 49.5 

Madera County 142,530 54.2 61.1 61.0 

Merced County 242,249 80.8 86.7 84.7 

Sacramento County 1,363,423 68.2 69.1 69.8 

San Joaquin County 664,796 85.0 86.7 88.7 

Stanislaus County 505,492 47.3 50.0 55.1 

Study Area—Central Valley 3,796,579 63.9 66.0 67.1 

Core Study Area 9,412,646 44.1 45.7 46.3 

Southern Sacramento Valley 658,108 65.7 66.0 66.2 

Southern San Joaquin Valley 1,311,579 51.7 56.2 56.1 

Southern California 16,843,742 23.8 24.6 24.4 

San Diego County 2,936,609 36.4 41.2 40.7 

Rest of California 4,991,463 32.5 32.6 32.5 

Statewide Total 36,154,147 33.1 34.5 34.4 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 5 Economic Growth and Related Impacts

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 5-9

B. EMPLOYMENT 

Statewide and regional employment growth patterns are projected to be very similar to the 

population patterns. Employment growth under either the Pacheco or Altamont network alternative 

will be an additional 1.5% over the No Project Alternative. Outside the core study area, the Southern 

San Joaquin Valley exhibits noticeable increases in employment growth rates between the No Project 

and HST Network Alternatives, with an additional 5% of growth for the HST Network Alternatives. 

Employment growth rates are very similar between the two HST Network Alternatives outside the 

core area and are nearly indistinguishable on a statewide level. 

Statewide employment is forecasted to grow by 37% under the No Project Alternative, with an 

additional increase of 1.53% under the Pacheco network alternative and 1.52% under the Altamont 

network alternative, as shown in Table 5.3.2. All five Bay Area Counties in the core study areas 

exhibit employment growth rates under the HST Network Alternatives that are about 1% more than 

under the No Project Alternative, with the Pacheco network alternative showing the highest growth 

rate for three of the counties. 

Table 5.3-2 

Projected Employment Growth Rate 

 Growth Rate (Year 2005 to 2030) (%)

Year 2005 

Employment 

No Project 

Alternative 

HST Network Alternative 

Area Pacheco Altamont

Alameda County 953,937 30.8 32.0 31.9 

Contra Costa County 508,854 50.0 51.2 50.8 

San Francisco County 779,357 25.2 26.2 25.9 

San Mateo County 522,830 37.2 38.4 38.5 

Santa Clara County 1,323,920 33.7 34.8 34.8 

Study Area—Bay Area 4,088,898 33.9 35.0 34.9 

Fresno County 435,769 35.2 38.2 38.0 

Madera County 56,892 60.6 69.0 69.3 

Merced County 87,365 31.7 40.1 38.5 

Sacramento County 805,978 56.3 57.4 57.7 

San Joaquin County 274,155 34.5 37.0 38.4 

Stanislaus County 224,491 41.1 44.2 48.2 

Study Area—Central Valley 1,884,650 45.4 48.0 48.7 

Core Study Area 5,973,548 37.4 39.1 39.2 

Southern Sacramento Valley 456,834 59.6 60.4 60.7 

Southern San Joaquin Valley 576,935 40.1 44.8 44.6 

Southern California 9,290,841 32.5 33.8 33.7 

San Diego County 1,895,002 46.9 49.3 49.7 

Rest of California 2,709,974 39.3 40.1 39.9 

Statewide Total 20,903,134 36.9 38.4 38.4 

Source: MTC/California High-Speed Rail Travel Demand Model; Cambridge Systematics 2007. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 5 Economic Growth and Related Impacts

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 5-10

The six Central Valley counties in the core study area have a wide variation in employment growth 

rates under the No Project Alternative with values ranging between 31% and 60%. All six counties 

have noticeably higher employment growth rates for the HST Network Alternatives, with Merced and 

Madera Counties showing the largest numeric difference in growth rates between the No Project and 

HST Network Alternatives; this result also holds for Stanislaus County in the Altamont network 

alternative. The population growth rate in these Central Valley counties as a group is highest for the 

Altamont network alternative, with the Altamont network alternative having the highest growth rate 

in four of the six counties. 

Compared to the No Project Alternative, the employment growth rates shown in Table 5.3-2 equate 

to an additional 320,000 jobs under the Pacheco network alternative and 316,000 jobs under the 

Altamont network alternative in the year 2030. As with population growth, however, this level of 

difference between the No Project and HST Network Alternatives is very small compared to the 

overall level of growth represented by the No Project Alternative relative to the 2005 conditions. 

The No Project Alternative is projected to continue historical patterns of employment growth across a 

diverse range of industry sectors, while also following recent trends toward increases in services and 

trade. As shown in Figure 5.3-2, nearly one-half of the employment growth for the No Project 

Alternative is projected in the FIRE (Finance, Insurance and Real Estate) and services sectors, while 

nearly one-quarter is in TCU (transportation, communications, and utilities), retail trade, and 

wholesale trade. The incremental employment growth under the HST Network Alternatives does not 

completely follow this historical pattern. Both HST Network Alternatives show a much greater 

propensity to job growth in the FIRE, services, TCU, wholesale trade, and retail trade categories. 

The Pacheco and Altamont network alternatives exhibit subtle differences in the types of jobs they 

are projected to attract to different regions. Table 5.3-3 depicts the percentage of growth by major 

industry group for the increment of jobs that may be “induced” by these two alternatives (i.e., job 

growth above and beyond that of the No Project Alternative). While the patterns are generally 

similar, the Altamont network alternative shows a greater propensity for generating jobs in the FIRE 

and Services sectors in the Central Valley and in San Diego, and in the TCU and trade sectors in the 

“rest of California.” The Pacheco network alternative shows a greater propensity for generating jobs 

in the TCU and trade sectors in the Central Valley and in San Diego, and in the FIRE and services 

sectors in the “rest of California.” The FIRE and Services sectors tend to be the most compatible for 

location in higher density settings, such as near potential HST sites where offices and retail 

development could be expected. 

C. URBANIZATION 

Urbanized areas in the core study area are expected to grow by about 40% between 2005 and 2030 

under the No Project Alternative, as shown in Table 5.3-4. This growth would represent an increase 

of about 400,000 ac (162,000 ha) over today’s 1.0 million ac (0.4 million ha) within the core analysis 

counties. Compared to urbanized area growth under the No Project Alternative, urbanized area 

growth is expected to be 0.9% (9,000 ac [3,650 ha]) higher under the Pacheco network alternative 

and 1.4% (14,000 ac [5,670 ha]) more under the Altamont network alternative. As with the 

population and employment growth, the level of difference between alternatives for urbanized area 

size is small compared to the overall level of growth represented by the No Project Alternative 

relative to the 2002 existing conditions. Noticeable differences in these general patterns can be seen 

for Madera and Merced Counties, both of which are projected to have sizable urbanization increases 

for the HST Network Alternatives compared to the No Project Alternative. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Figure 5.3-2

Employment Growth by Industry Sector

No Project Alternative—Growth Compared to Year 2002 Conditions 

Source: Cambridge Systematics 2007. 

Farming

1%

TCU & 

Trade

27%

FIRE & 

Services

62%

Government

4%

Mining, 

Manufacture 

& 

Construction

6%

Farming

4%

TCU & 

Trade

23%

FIRE & 

Services

48%

Government

13%

Mining, 

Manufacture 

& 

Construction

12%

Farming

1%

Mining, 

Manufacturing 

& 

Construction

6%

TCU & Trade

28%

FIRE & 

Services

61%

Government

4%

Altamont HST Alternative 

Incremental Growth Compared 

to No Project Alternative 

Pacheco HST Alternative 

Incremental Growth Compared 

to No Project Alternative 

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 5 Economic Gr

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 5.3-3 

Percent of Incremental Growth by Industry 

Farming and Mining Construction and Manufacturing TCU and Trade FIRE and Services 

Incremental Growth Rate for Induced Employment (Year 2005 to 2030) 

Pacheco 

HST 

Altamont 

HST 

Pacheco 

HST 

Altamont 

HST 

Pacheco 

HST 

Altamont 

HST 

Pacheco 

HST 

Altamont 

HST 

Pac

H

Study Area—Bay Area 0 0 6 5 28 29 62 63 Study Area—Central Valley 2 2 6 4 25 21 63 68 Subtotal—Core 

Study Area 1 1 6 5 27 25 62 66 

Southern Sacramento Valley 1 2 10 9 34 33 50 52 Southern San Joaquin Valley 5 5 4 4 20 19 66 67 Southern California 0 1 6 7 27 29 62 60 San Diego 0 0 4 3 32 26 59 66 Rest of California 4 4 9 10 38 45 44 36 Statewide Total 1 1 6 5 28 27 61 62 

Source: Cambridge Systematics 2007. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 5 Economic Growth and Related Impacts

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 5-12

Table 5.3-4 

Increase in Urbanized Area Acreage 

Area

Year 2002 

Urbanized Area 

Acreage 

Growth Rate (Year 2002 to 2030) (%)

No Project 

Alternative 

HST Network Alternative 

Pacheco Altamont

Alameda County 141,654 31.8 32.6 32.0 

Contra Costa County 142,467 29.1 29.6 29.4 

San Francisco County 23,277 28.9 29.9 29.6 

San Mateo County 70,869 13.3 13.4 13.7 

Santa Clara County 184,481 12.7 13.5 14.6 

Study Area—Bay Area 562,748 22.4 23.0 23.2

Fresno County 96,977 54.9 58.4 58.0 

Madera County 23,255 56.4 62.5 62.5 

Merced County 31,712 90.6 96.2 94.3 

Sacramento County 157,101 51.4 51.5 52.3 

San Joaquin County 74,250 96.3 95.3 96.8 

Stanislaus County 55,426 34.0 33.8 38.7 

Study Area—Central Valley 438,721 60.7 62.0 62.9

Core Study Area 1,001,469 39.2 40.1 40.6

Sources: Economic Growth Effects of the System Alternatives for the Program Environmental Impact 

Report/Environmental Impact Statement, California High-Speed Rail Authority, July 2003; Cambridge Systematics 

2007. 

5.3.4 Detail for No Project Alternative 

On a statewide basis, population is projected to increase between 2005 and 2030 by about 12 million 

(33%), which averages to about 480,000 more people each year. The long-term growth rate averages to 

about 1.1% annually, which is lower than California’s 1.8 % annual population growth rate between 1970 

and 2005 but consistent with long-term population forecasts by California Department of Finance. 

Employment growth rates are similar, with jobs increasing by 8 million (37%) between 2005 and 2030; 

this increase equates to average annual growth of about 320,000 jobs. The long-term growth rate 

averages about 1.3% per year, which is one-half of the 2.6% annual employment growth rate since 

1970. 

For the 11 counties in the core study area, population and employment growth under the No Project 

Alternative are expected to require approximately an additional 400,000 ac (162,000 ha) of urbanized 

land in 2030 than the current estimated urbanized area of approximately 1.0 million ac (1,271,523 ha).7

 

Urbanization of land in these core counties is projected to occur at slightly lower rates than overall 

population and employment growth, reflecting a number of factors: 

• A reduction in availability of land for development in some Bay Area counties, creating higher land 

costs and market forces for denser development. 

• Slight increases in infill and redevelopment, as seen recently in many urban communities, and 

blighted areas that receive new development. 

 

7

 Estimates of current urbanized area are based on urban land cover data provided by the California Farmland Mapping and 

Monitoring Program (CFMMP), a division of the California Department of Conservation. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 5 Economic Growth and Related Impacts

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 5-13

• An increase in marginal residential densities that has occurred over recent years.8

5.3.5 Detail for HST Network Alternatives 

As noted earlier, statewide population and employment forecasts for the HST Network Alternatives are 

similar to those for the No Project Alternative. For Year 2030, the Pacheco network alternative is 

projected to add about 502,000 (1.4%) more people and 320,000 (1.5%) more jobs compared to the No 

Project Alternative. The Altamont network alternative is projected to add about 495,000 (1.3%) more 

people and 316,000 (1.5%) more jobs compared to the No Project Alternative. The incremental effect of 

both HST Network Alternatives is to add the equivalent of about 1 year’s population and employment 

growth to California by year 2030. 

Land consumption for both HST Network Alternatives is projected to be of the same magnitude because 

of the predominant effect of population growth. In the 11 core area counties, the Altamont network 

alternative is projected to consume an additional 5,000 ac (0.5%) of land for urbanized densities 

compared to the Pacheco network alternative. This increment compares to a total of 1.4 million ac of 

urbanized land projected for these 11 counties in the No Project Alternative. The HST Network 

Alternatives are able to accommodate population and employment growth at a larger rate than urbanized 

area growth because of stronger employment growth in the services and FIRE sectors and market forces 

supporting denser station-area development for office-style facilities. 

5.3.6 Study Area Effects 

Each of the HST Network Alternatives has varied effects on different parts of the state. Part of this 

difference is in terms of overall population, employment, and urbanization projections. Another part of 

the difference is related to the type of industries that are projected to experience employment growth 

under each alternative. 

Table 5.3-5 presents population and employment projections for each county and region analyzed. 

Values are provided for Year 2005 existing conditions, and year 2030 projections are provided for the No 

Project Alternative and the two HST Network Alternatives. On an absolute basis, the areas currently 

most populous are projected to exhibit the largest increases in population and employment from 2005 to 

2030. San Diego County and Southern California are together projected to add about 5 million people 

and 4 million jobs during this period. The five Bay Area counties in the core study area are projected to 

add about 1.7 million people and 1.4 million jobs during this period. The six counties in the Central 

Valley study area are projected to add about 2.4 million people and 0.9 million jobs. 

A. POPULATION GROWTH RATES 

A relative comparison of county-level population growth rates is depicted graphically in Figures 5.3-3 

through 5.3-5. Figure 5.3-3 displays the relative change in population for each analysis region from 

2005 to 2030 under the No Project Alternative. These data illustrate that Merced and San Joaquin 

Counties are projected to exhibit the largest population growth rates, followed by Southern 

Sacramento Valley, Southern San Joaquin Valley, and Contra Costa County. The lowest relative 

population growth rates are projected to occur in the core areas of the Bay Area and Southern 

California. 

 

8

 California’s housing plan update (Raising the Roof: California Housing Development Projections and Constraints, 1997–2020; 

California Department of Housing and Community Development; May 2000; Exhibit 17) analyzed changes in gross population 

densities between 1984 and 1986. This analysis included data for 11 of the 21 counties in the study area (see Section 5.2). In 9 of 

these 11 counties, the density of new residential development that occurred between 1984 and 1996 was between 50% and 585% 

higher than the average residential density that existed in 1984. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 5 Economic Grow

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 5.3-5 

Year 2030 Employment and Population: County and Regional Totals 

Region 

Employment Populatio

2005 

Conditions 

2030 

2005 

Conditions 

No Project 

Pacheco 

Alternative 

Altamont 

Alternative No Project 

P

Alt

Alameda County 953,937 1,247,413 1,259,563 1,257,894 1,451,065 2,038,482 Contra Costa County 508,854 763,445 769,521 767,521 1,017,644 1,543,053 San Francisco County 779,357 975,823 983,634 981,068 741,025 796,208 San Mateo County 522,830 717,526 723,835 723,899 701,175 814,065 Santa Clara County 1,323,920 1,769,498 1,785,181 1,784,281 1,705,158 2,152,963 Study Area—Bay Area 4,088,898 5,473,705 5,521,734 5,514,663 5,616,067 7,344,771 7,Fresno County 435,769 589,226 602,155 601,294 878,089 1,297,476 Madera County 56,892 91,364 96,173 96,293 142,530 219,832 Merced County 87,365 115,054 122,374 121,040 242,249 437,880 Sacramento County 805,978 1,259,792 1,268,687 1,271,311 1,363,423 2,293,028 San Joaquin County 274,155 368,745 375,491 379,476 664,796 1,229,757 Stanislaus County 224,491 316,686 323,679 332,624 505,492 744,599 Study Area—Central 

Valley 1,884,650 2,740,867 2,788,559 2,802,038 3,796,579 6,222,572 6,

Core Study Area 5,973,548 8,214,572 8,310,293 8,316,701 9,412,646 13,567,343 13,Southern Sacramento Valley 456,834 729,293 732,903 733,942 658,108 1,090,299 Southern San Joaquin Valley 576,935 808,196 835,245 833,977 1,311,579 1,989,111 Southern California 9,290,841 12,308,179 12,435,533 12,421,683 16,843,742 20,844,795 20San Diego County 1,895,002 2,783,258 2,828,805 2,837,183 2,936,609 4,005,624 Rest of California 2,709,974 3,774,366 3,795,828 3,791,032 4,991,463 6,613,499 Statewide Total 20,903,134 28,617,864 28,938,605 28,934,518 36,154,147 48,110,671 48

Sources: U.S. Bureau of the Census; MTC/California High-Speed Rail Travel Demand Model; Cambridge Systematics 2007
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Figure 5.3-3

County-Level Population Growth 

under the No Project Alternative

Source: Cambridge Systematics 2007. 

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 5 Economic Growth and Related Impacts

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 5-15

Figures 5.3-4 and 5.3-5 display county-level population growth rates compared to the No Project 

Alternative for the Pacheco and Altamont network alternatives, respectively. For Pacheco, 

incremental population growth is highest in Madera County, followed by Merced County, San Diego 

County, and the Southern San Joaquin Valley; incremental growth rates are lowest in Southern 

California (except San Diego County) and areas from San Joaquin County northward. For Altamont, 

incremental population growth is highest in Madera and Stanislaus Counties, followed by Merced 

County, San Diego County, and the Southern San Joaquin Valley; incremental growth rates are 

lowest in Southern California (except San Diego County) and areas from Sacramento County 

northward. 

B. EMPLOYMENT GROWTH RATES 

Figures 5.3-6 through 5.3-8 graphically depict county-level employment growth rates. Figure 5.3-6 

displays the relative change in employment for each county from Year 2005 to Year 2030 under the 

No Project Alternative. These data illustrate that Madera, Sacramento, Contra Costa, and San Diego 

Counties and the Southern Sacramento Valley are projected to exhibit the largest employment 

growth rates. The lowest relative employment growth rates are projected to occur in the San 

Francisco, Alameda, and Merced Counties and Southern California. 

Figures 5.3-7 and 5.3-8 display county-level employment growth rates compared to the No Project 

Alternative for the Pacheco and Altamont network alternatives, respectively. For Pacheco, 

incremental employment growth is highest in Madera and Merced Counties, followed by Fresno and 

Stanislaus Counties and the Southern San Joaquin Valley; incremental growth rates are lowest in 

Southern California (except San Diego County), the Bay Area, and the greater Sacramento area. For 

Altamont, incremental employment growth is highest in Madera, Merced, and Stanislaus Counties, 

followed by San Joaquin County and the Southern San Joaquin Valley; incremental growth rates are 

lowest in Southern California (except San Diego County), the Bay Area, and the greater Sacramento 

area. 

The Northern Central Valley region historically has exceeded statewide averages for government and 

farming jobs while lagging in all other industry groups. This general pattern is projected to change 

slightly under the No Project Alternative, with employment shifts from government into farming, and 

from manufacturing, trade, and TCU into FIRE and services. Incremental job growth under the HST 

Network Alternatives is projected to have incremental job growth that is oriented much more heavily 

toward FIRE and services (about 62% of total), with trade, and TCU accounting for about 27% of 

incremental growth. This is the largest shift in the nature of employment for any region and 

suggests that either HST Network Alternative could be a strong influence in attracting higher-wage 

jobs to the Central Valley. 

Taken together, the population and employment results suggest that the additional population 

growth under the HST Network Alternatives is driven by internal job growth (i.e., job growth that 

occurs in the same county as opposed to population growth) related to initiation of HST service, 

rather than by potential population shifts from the Bay Area and Southern California and associated 

long-distance commuting. For the six Central Valley Counties in the core study area, each new job 

generated between 2005 and 2030 (No Project) is projected to be accompanied by about 2.8 new 

people. However, each job induced by one of the HST Network Alternatives is projected to be 

accompanied by only 1.6 new people. Hence, the HST Network Alternatives are projected to induce 

proportionately more jobs than people in the Central Valley. 

C. URBANIZATION 

Table 5.3-6 presents projections for increases in urbanized areas for the 11 counties in the core study 

area. While population and employment increases were projected to be concentrated in the counties 

that currently are most populous, urbanization patterns do not follow this trend. Although the six 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 5 Economic Growth and Related Impacts

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 5-16

Central Valley Counties are projected to account for 38% of the job growth for the No Project 

Alternative, they are projected to account for 68% of the urbanization increase in the core study 

area. Among all 11 core area counties, Sacramento, San Joaquin, and Fresno Counties are projected 

to experience by far the largest absolute increases in urbanized acreage for the No Project 

Alternative. 

This pattern changes somewhat for the HST Network Alternatives. The six Central Valley Counties 

account for about one-half of the total incremental job growth in the core study area, but their share 

of the urbanization increase drops to 60% (from the 68% under the No Project Alternative). 

Absolute increases in urbanization for the HST Network Alternatives are largest in Santa Clara County 

(for Altamont), Stanislaus County (for Altamont), and Fresno County (both HST Network 

Alternatives). 

Table 5.3-6 

Year 2030 Size of Urbanized Area by Alternative 

Area

Year 2002 

Urbanized Area 

Acreage 

Year 2030 Urbanized Area (Acres)

No Project 

Alternative 

HST Network Alternative 

Pacheco Altamont 

Alameda County 141,654 186,683 187,808 186,942 

Contra Costa County 142,467 183,869 184,596 184,288 

San Francisco County 23,277 30,013* 30,246* 30,172* 

San Mateo County 70,869 80,304 80,386 80,543 

Santa Clara County 184,481 207,833 209,352 211,324 

Study Area—Bay Area 562,748 688,702 692,388 693,269

Fresno County 96,977 150,223 153,574 153,243 

Madera County 23,255 36,366 37,793 37,778 

Merced County 31,712 60,455 62,212 61,611 

Sacramento County 157,101 237,818 238,066 239,245 

San Joaquin County 74,250 145,776 145,046 146,104 

Stanislaus County 55,426 74,267 74,179 76,886 

Study Area—Central Valley 438,721 704,905 710,870 714,867

Core Study Area 1,001,469 1,393,607 1,403,258 1,408,136

*Note: Projected increases in urbanized area for San Francisco County are a function of the average densities 

used to calculate employment acreage. Because “greenfield” land is not available in San Francisco County, 

employment growth will need to be accommodated through densification and infill rather than through increases 

in urbanized area size implied in this table. 

Source: Cambridge Systematics 2007. 

5.3.7 Summary of Effects 

Overall, the system alternatives exhibit very similar levels of growth-inducing effects in terms of 

population, employment, and urbanization patterns. The additional effect of either HST Network 

Alternative relative to the No Project Alternative is small compared to the difference between the No 

Project Alternative and existing conditions. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Figure 5.3-4

County-Level Population Growth 

under the Pacheco Network Alternative

Source: Cambridge Systematics 2007. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Figure 5.3-5

County-Level Population Growth under the 

Altamont Network Alternative

Source: Cambridge Systematics 2007. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Figure 5.3-6

County-Level Employment Growth

 under the No Project Alternative

Source: Cambridge Systematics 2007. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Figure 5.3-7

County-Level Employment Growth under 

the Pacheco Network Alternative

Source: Cambridge Systematics 2007. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Figure 5.3-8

County-Level Employment Growth under 

the Altamont Network Alternative

Source: Cambridge Systematics 2007. 

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 5 Economic Growth and Related Impacts

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 5-17

The HST Network Alternatives would stimulate additional growth relative to the No Project Alternative in 

many Central Valley counties between Sacramento and Fresno. The incremental employment effect is 

much larger than the incremental population effect in all Central Valley counties, suggesting that the HST 

Network Alternatives might be more effective at distributing employment throughout the state. Also, this 

result suggests that the HST Network Alternatives would not stimulate large shifts in residential location 

from the Bay Area into the Central Valley. 

Experiences in other countries have shown that HST systems can provide a location advantage to those 

areas that are near an HST station, while at the same time facilitating broader economic expansion for a 

much wider geographic region. The HST Network Alternatives would contribute to a potential economic 

boost in two ways. 

• An HST system would provide user benefits (travel-time savings, cost reductions, accident 

reductions) and accessibility improvements for California’s citizens; in addition to HST travelers, 

travelers on other modes of transportation can accrue these user benefits, as trips are diverted from 

highways and airports, resulting in reduced congestion. 

• An HST system would improve accessibility to labor and customer markets, thereby potentially 

improving the competitiveness of the state’s industries and the overall economy. With this second 

effect, businesses that locate close to an HST station could operate more efficiently than businesses 

that locate elsewhere. Experience from overseas suggests that this competitive advantage may be 

quite pronounced in high-wage employment sectors that are frequently in high demand in many 

communities. This second effect would be much stronger under the proposed HST than under the 

No Project Alternative. 

One of the most telling summary statistics comes from combining population and employment growth 

projections with land consumption forecasts, providing a measure of “land consumed per new job and 

resident.” Essentially, this calculation tells us how efficient each network alternative is at accommodating 

the projected growth. Because the alternatives have similar levels of overall growth, the efficiency by 

which that growth would be accommodated becomes more important. Table 5.3-7 provides the relevant 

data for each alternative; lower values suggest greater efficiency. The results indicate that the Pacheco 

network alternative is the most efficient of the alternatives, providing an incremental development 

density that is 1.3% more efficient than the No Project Alternative, while the Altamont network 

alternative is 0.8% more efficient than the No Project Alternative. The efficiency gains for both HST 

Network Alternatives are achieved in conjunction with higher population and employment projections 

than under the No Project Alternative. 

Table 5.3-7 

Potential Land Consumption Efficiencies in the Core Study Area 

No Project 

Alternative

Pacheco HST 

Network 

Alternative 

Altamont HST 

Network 

Alternative

Land Consumption (thousands of acres) 392.1 402 407 

Job Growth (thousands of jobs) 2,241 2,337 2,343 

Population Growth (thousands of people) 4,155 4,304 4,354 

Acres Consumed per New Job and Resident* 0.0613 0.0605 0.0608 

Efficiency Gain/Loss Relative to No Project Alternative - +1.3% +0.8% 

* Value found by dividing land consumption by the sum of job growth and population growth. 

Source: Cambridge Systematics 2007. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 5 Economic Growth and Related Impacts

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 5-18

5.4 Potential Indirect Impacts of Induced Growth 

This section explores the potential indirect impacts related to incremental population and employment 

growth and associated changes in urbanization. Potential indirect impacts are described for the Altamont 

and Pacheco network alternatives, with the No Project Alternative used as the reference point. 

As described above, both HST Network Alternatives may have positive, albeit relatively small, statewide 

effects on population and employment growth compared to the No Project Alternative. At the sub-state 

level, San Joaquin Valley counties are projected to experience population and employment growth rates 

that are noticeably higher than the statewide average, with the Altamont network alternative 

experiencing higher growth rates in areas north of Fresno County and the Pacheco network alternative 

experience higher growth rates from Fresno County southward. 

Despite the relatively small magnitude of this additional population and employment growth compared to 

under the No Project Alternative, these changes could contribute to indirect impacts on the human or 

natural environment in addition to the direct impacts created by construction and operation of an HST. 

Many of these impacts may derive from the increased urbanization needed to accommodate the 

additional population and employment. In 2030, the total size of urbanized areas in the study area would 

be virtually the same under the proposed HST Network Alternatives as under the No Project Alternative, 

although the HST Network Alternatives will lead to increased urbanization in Fresno, Madera, Merced, and 

Santa Clara Counties. 

Much of the potential incremental growth associated with each alternative is likely to focus around HST 

stations because these are the locations that receive the highest accessibility benefit with HST service. 

While county and regional effects may differ only slightly between alternatives, the localized effects could 

be larger near these proposed HST stations compared to under the No Project Alternative. 

5.4.1 Transportation 

This section discusses the potential impacts of induced growth on traffic conditions for highways, 

roadways, passenger transportation services (bus, rail, air, intermodal), goods movement, parking, and 

transit facilities in the study area. 

Currently, the study area highway and roadway corridors considered in this analysis represent some of 

the worst traffic conditions in the nation. Traffic conditions throughout the study area are expected to 

worsen. Vehicle V/C ratios are projected to deteriorate between Years 2005 and 2030, and there would 

be more level of service F segments under the No Project Alternative compared to existing conditions. 

When compared to this projected degradation in traffic conditions under the No Project Alternative, the 

traffic conditions projected for the HST Network Alternatives would improve throughout the study area, 

despite the approximate 1.2% increase in study area population and employment under the proposed 

HST Network Alternative. The potential impacts of the induced growth, to the degree that they can be 

detected, would be most apparent around urban HST stations where the additional traffic generated by 

induced growth is expected to be concentrated. 

The largest increase in population and employment would occur in Madera and Merced Counties for the 

Pacheco network alternative, and in Madera, Merced, and Stanislaus Counties for the Altamont network 

alternative. This increase has the greatest potential to generate impacts from traffic accessing the 

potential HST station sites. Most of these communities have considerable capacity on roadways and 

intersections in areas surrounding potential downtown or outlying HST station sites. The potential traffic 

generation impacts of the projected 4% to 6% more residents and employees, such as that projected for 

Madera County, would be unlikely to have measurable impacts on roadway and intersection levels of 

service. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 5 Economic Growth and Related Impacts

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 5-19

As an overall conclusion, the potential transportation impacts of induced growth under the HST Network 

Alternatives are likely to concentrate around proposed HST station sites. Because the Altamont network 

alternative is projected to experience higher population and employment growth than the Pacheco 

network alternative for nearly all counties north of Fresno County, the secondary transportation impacts 

could be expected to be proportionately larger for the Altamont network alternative. Project-level 

environmental studies would be expected to provide the appropriate opportunity to investigate more 

localized impacts. 

5.4.2 Air Quality 

Section 3.3, “Air Quality,” describes the potential impact of induced growth on air pollution. Under highend assumptions, the HST Network Alternatives annually would accommodate an estimated 95 million 

travelers that would otherwise use the roadways and airports. This diversion to HST could lead to a 

projected 5% statewide VMT reduction on the highway system, with VMT reductions of between 7% and 

12% in Bay Area and Central Valley Counties. Thus, the HST Network Alternatives are projected to 

decrease the amount of mobile-source air quality pollutants in the study area and the state as compared 

to the No Project Alternative. The additional increase in population and employment in each county from 

induced growth generally would be expected to increase traffic and mobile-source air pollutants by an 

amount proportional to that growth. Even with induced growth, mobile-source air emissions under all 

HST Network Alternatives would be lower than No Project emissions in all counties because the projected 

VMT reduction is larger than the projected population and employment growth. 

At the local level, the HST Network Alternatives have somewhat more potential to affect air quality 

because of expected increases in local traffic near HST station locations. It is expected that the induced 

growth could concentrate near HST stations, and thus the direct and indirect air quality effects could be 

larger around the station areas. The severity of these local impacts, however, cannot be reliably 

quantified without local and detailed traffic modeling and impact analysis, which is outside the scope of 

analysis for this Program EIR/EIS. Project-level environmental studies would be expected to provide the 

appropriate opportunity to investigate more localized impacts. 

5.4.3 Noise and Vibration 

Increased population and employment related to induced growth would not increase the likelihood or 

levels of potential noise and vibration impacts. Therefore, no indirect impacts from induced growth are 

expected in the areas of noise and vibration. 

5.4.4 Energy 

There would not be any significant differences in potential energy use among the alignment alternatives 

resulting from general population and employment growth projections because the magnitude of the 

incremental statewide population and employment growth is expected to be similar, regardless of which 

alternative is chosen. However, the expected propensity of the proposed HST Network Alternatives to 

concentrate employment and population near HST stations, and the resulting incremental development 

density benefit, would tend to reduce the number and length of vehicle trips for work, leisure, and 

commerce compared to the No Project Alternative. Such an effect would decrease the amount of energy 

directly used for transportation. The potential increased density in the vicinity of proposed HST station 

sites also would limit the amount of energy required for construction of and access to future 

infrastructure projects by reducing the distance between structures and reducing the number of 

structures that would be required to serve new population and employment growth. In addition, higher 

density would reduce demand for the large-volume transportation-related infrastructure projects required 

for a highly automobile-oriented transportation network. Finally, if growth around HST stations occurs at 

higher densities than would occur with more dispersed growth under the No Project Alternative, savings 

in building-related energy use also could be realized because multi-unit and multi-story structures tend to 

require less energy per square foot for heating and cooling needs. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 5 Economic Growth and Related Impacts

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 5-20

The projected population and employment distributive effect of the project could create the need for 

some change in the incremental development of overall energy and electricity generation and/or 

transmission capacity among regions. For example, Madera, Merced, and Stanislaus Counties would 

exhibit the largest relative increase in both population and employment with implementation of the HST 

Network Alternatives. Relatively high incremental growth is also expected in other counties in the Central 

Valley. The Southern San Joaquin Valley and San Diego County also would exhibit induced employment 

and population growth that is above the statewide average. These differences in growth rates among 

counties potentially would require more incremental production and/or transmission capacity to be 

developed in some areas with implementation of the HST Network Alternatives as compared to the No 

Project Alternative. Regional differences in production and transmission needs may also be seen among 

the HST Network Alternatives, with the Altamont network alternative exhibiting more energy use in areas 

north of Fresno County and the Pacheco network alternative exhibiting more energy use from Fresno 

County southward (including Southern California). 

5.4.5 Electromagnetic Frequency and Electromagnetic Interference 

Increased population or employment related to induced growth would not increase the likelihood or 

potential severity of EMF and EMI associated with operation of the proposed HST Network Alternatives. 

Therefore, no indirect impacts from induced growth are expected in the areas of EMF/EMI. 

5.4.6 Land Use, Communities and Neighborhoods, Property, and Environmental Justice 

This section describes the potential impacts of induced growth attributable to the HST Network 

Alternatives on land use compatibility, communities and neighborhoods, property, environmental justice, 

and socioeconomics. 

A. COMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING LAND USE AND FUTURE LAND USE PLANS 

The analysis results indicate that employment is projected to increase under the HST Network 

Alternatives, with employment potentially available for a broad range of education or job skills. 

Increased employment opportunities generally lead to personal income growth. The relationship 

between employment, income growth, and the socioeconomic composition of a community is 

complex. Increases in employment and income opportunities, however, would tend to make a 

community more attractive to a broader range of individuals. Because induced growth under the 

HST Network Alternatives would be relatively small (compared to the growth under the No Project 

Alternative), it is expected that socioeconomic changes also would be small. 

The HST Network Alternatives are projected to push employment growth in the study area 1.2% 

higher than under the No Project Alternative, with the Altamont network alternative experiencing 

higher growth in the Central Valley and the Pacheco network alternative experiencing higher growth 

in the Bay Area. The development pressures associated with the HST Network Alternatives would be 

concentrated in the service and FIRE industries, which generally occupy office developments and 

have been shown to have a higher propensity to locate close to transit stations. Increased residential 

growth might also be expected in HST station areas and adjacent communities. 

The HST Network Alternatives include potential station location options that were identified through 

consultation with local planning agencies and selected to be compatible to the extent possible with 

future planned land uses. Recent trends among local jurisdictions show a growing consideration of 

land use policies that are intended to encourage high-density, mixed-use development in downtowns 

and other areas in which HST stations may be located. Section 3.7, “Land Use and Planning, 

Communities and Neighborhoods, Property, and Environmental Justice,” describes community plans 

in the various HST station area options and assesses the level of compatibility of an HST with these 

plans. Overall, most station locations for the proposed HST Network Alternatives would be highly 

compatible with local and regional plans, which generally support rail systems and transit-oriented 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 5 Economic Growth and Related Impacts

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 5-21

development. Potential inconsistencies were noted for a few stations, including Livermore (Greenville 

Road/I-580), Tracy (ACE), Union City (Shinn), Briggsmore (Amtrak), Merced (Downtown), and Castle 

AFB. As induced growth may lead to intensified development in HST station areas, secondary land 

use impacts are possible with these same potential station locations. However, it is possible that 

some of these inconsistencies will be addressed through further land use planning that occurs at the 

local level. 

B. COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS 

The induced growth associated with either HST Network Alternative would have some modest 

potential to increase office/commercial development densities around HST station sites and 

residential growth in adjacent communities. In general, this growth would not be expected to create 

new barriers within neighborhoods or reduce community cohesion because the growth would 

generally follow existing transportation corridors and rights-of-way. In some cases, growth could 

provide positive community and neighborhood benefits by helping to fill in vacant or underutilized 

areas with higher-intensity uses that generate and encourage pedestrian activity. Any induced 

development that does occur would be expected to be consistent with locally adopted land use plans 

and developed through a public process that considers both positive and negative community and 

neighborhood impacts. 

C. PROPERTY 

The induced population and employment growth that would be attributable to the HST Network 

Alternatives is not projected to create the need for any additional right-of-way for wider highways, 

new interchanges, additional runways, or other auto or air travel infrastructure. 

The highest potential for secondary property impacts under the HST Network Alternatives would be 

expected to occur near the HST stations, where the transportation accessibility benefits of HST are 

expected to lead to increased land values and development pressures. Increased land values would 

represent a benefit to property owners near stations. As a result of the accessibility benefits of HST 

access, more and denser development would be expected to occur near HST stations. While some of 

this development might represent a net increase in development in the region (as a result of induced 

population and employment growth), other development simply might be shifted from an alternative 

location (e.g., near an outlying highway interchange). Therefore, some properties in other parts of 

the region, not near HST stations, might not experience the same development pressure that they 

would have under the No Project Alternative. These effects are likely to be very dispersed and minor 

from a regional perspective, and any specific locations that might be affected outside of HST station 

areas cannot be predicted. Furthermore, any induced development that occurs (whether inside or 

outside HST station areas) would be expected to be consistent with locally adopted land use plans 

that reflect community input into preferred development patterns. The planning policies and general 

plans of most jurisdictions in which potential HST station sites would be located are directing present 

and future development into their urban centers and to infill sites independent of possible future HST 

implementation. 

D. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

The induced growth attributable to the HST Network Alternatives should not have disproportionate 

impacts on minority and low-income populations. The induced growth from the HST Network 

Alternatives would have the potential to offer improved employment opportunities to local 

communities. These opportunities may arise from more diversified regional economies and robust 

employment growth in regions that would not benefit in the same way under the No Project 

Alternative. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 5 Economic Growth and Related Impacts

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 5-22

Section 3.7, “Land Use and Planning, Communities and Neighborhoods, Property, and Environmental 

Justice,” identifies the extent to which environmental justice populations are present in potential HST 

station areas. Stations with such populations identified include West Oakland/7th Street, 12th 

Street/City Center, Coliseum/Airport, Union City (BART), Fremont (Warm Springs), Gilroy (Caltrain), 

Union City (Shinn), Merced (Downtown), and Castle AFB. Impacts in specific station areas and 

adjacent communities could be both positive and negative—positive to property owners as a result of 

increased property values and to workers as a result of increased job opportunities, but potentially 

negative to non-property owners if rising property values reduce housing affordability. It would be 

speculative to attempt to further characterize potential impacts at the program level without more 

specific information about what development impacts might occur. 

The consequence of growing employment in the service industries would be a diversification in the 

Central Valley away from agriculture and into more non-agricultural jobs. The impact of these new 

jobs (and the population growth and new development that it would stimulate) on minority and lowincome populations in each county cannot be identified in this Program EIR/EIS. In general, FIRE 

and service job growth would tend to be attracted to station areas and adjacent communities under 

the HST Network Alternatives. The extent to which this development would potentially use land 

occupied by minority and low-income populations would deserve consideration at the project-level 

review of potential environmental justice issues. The growth in FIRE and service sector employment 

would tend to offer more jobs to high-skilled members of the work force than to low-skilled workers. 

Many service-sector jobs, however, would be accessible to low-skilled workers, and any increase in 

employment generally would have multiplier effects that tend to generate indirect and induced job 

growth across many occupations. Lower-skilled workers could also benefit from the additional job 

opportunities in building construction and related industries as a result of induced employment and 

population growth that occurs in the region. As with many of the resource areas, there are potential 

regional differences in these opportunities between the HST Network Alternatives because of 

differences in the pattern of induced population and employment growth. In northern San Joaquin 

Valley counties, more employment opportunities would be expected for environmental justice 

populations with the Altamont network alternative. In other San Joaquin Valley and Southern 

California counties, more employment opportunities would be expected with the Pacheco network 

alternative. Opportunities may be relatively similar between the HST Network Alternatives in the Bay 

Area. 

5.4.7 Farmland and Agriculture 

The urbanization forecasts that were developed for the analysis of potential growth inducement resulted 

in conceptual urbanization footprints showing the potential future locations of developed areas in the 11 

core study area counties. The footprints show the areas that would be the most likely to become 

urbanized in the future, based on the levels of projected population and employment growth, current 

development patterns, land accessibility, and local regulations and policies. These urbanization footprints 

were combined with GIS-based information used in Chapter 3 showing the location of lands in agricultural 

use to produce estimates of the extent to which farmland might be converted to urbanized areas. 

Table 5.4-1 provides estimates of farmland acreage that could be converted to urbanized land uses for 

the No Project and HST Network Alternatives. Results are presented separately for categories of prime 

farmland, farmland of statewide importance, unique farmland, and farmland of local importance. The 

difference between the No Project and HST Network Alternatives provides an estimate of the indirect 

impact of induced growth on farmland and agriculture. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 5 Economic Growth and Related Impacts

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 5-23

Table 5.4-1 Farmland Resources Potentially Affected by Future Urbanization 

Area

Acreage of Resource Potentially Affected by Future Urbanization* 

(Percent Change from No Project Alternative)

HST Network Alternatives 

No Project Alternative Pacheco Altamont

Prime Farmland 

Alameda County 3,062 3,089 (1%) 3,062 (0%)

Contra Costa County 8,108 8,607 (6%) 8,394 (4%)

San Francisco County 0 0 0

San Mateo County 398 398 (0%) 398 (0%)

Santa Clara County 4,935 4,952 (0%) 5,113 (4%)

Study Area—Bay Area 16,502 17,045 (3%) 16,966 (3%)

Fresno County 29,092 31,694 (9%) 31,563 (8%)

Madera County 2,899 2,955 (2%) 2,955 (2%)

Merced County 15,073 16,035 (6%) 15,587 (3%)

Sacramento County 163 163 (0%) 163 (0%)

San Joaquin County 25,113 24,496 (-2%) 25,136 (0%)

Stanislaus County 12,420 12,333 (-1%) 13,776 (11%)

Study Area—Central Valley 84,760 87,675 (3%) 89,180 (5%)

Core Study Area 101,261 104,721 (3%) 106,147 (5%)

Farmland of Statewide Importance 

Alameda County 835 890 (7%) 835 (0%)

Contra Costa County 2,743 2,733 (0%) 2733 (0%)

San Francisco County 0 0 0

San Mateo County 0 0 0

Santa Clara County 813 815 (0%) 870 (7%)

Study Area—Bay Area 4,391 4,438 (1%) 4,438 (1%)

Fresno County 3,754 4,248 (13%) 4,043 (8%)

Madera County 1,497 1,527 (2%) 1,512 (1%)

Merced County 3,729 4,060 (9%) 3,912 (5%)

Sacramento County 32,746 32,793 (0%) 33,320 (2%)

San Joaquin County 23,991 23,851 (-1%) 24,164 (1%)

Stanislaus County 2,716 2713 (0%) 3,593 (32%)

Study Area—Central Valley 68,433 69,192 (1%) 70,544 (3%)

Core Study Area 72,824 73,630 (1%) 74,982 (3%)

Unique Farmland 

Alameda County 588 657 (12%) 588 (0%)

Contra Costa County 1,184 1,176 (-1%) 1,176 (-1%)

San Francisco County 0 0 0

San Mateo County 156 156 (0%) 156 (0%)

Santa Clara County 91 91 (0%) 91 (0%)

Study Area—Bay Area 2,019 2,081 (3%) 2,011 (0%)
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 5 Economic Growth and Related Impacts

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 5-24

Area

Acreage of Resource Potentially Affected by Future Urbanization* 

(Percent Change from No Project Alternative)

HST Network Alternatives 

No Project Alternative Pacheco Altamont

Fresno County 3,818 4,038 (6%) 4,055 (6%)

Madera County 3,430 4,260 (24%) 4,260 (24%)

Merced County 3,195 3,361 (5%) 3,361 (5%)

Sacramento County 1,878 1,878 (0%) 1,900 (1%)

San Joaquin County 2,861 2,861 (0%) 2,864 (0%)

Stanislaus County 974 974 (0%) 1,100 (13%)

Study Area—Central Valley 16,156 17,372 (8%) 17,540 (9%)

Core Study Area 18,175 19,452 (7%) 19,551 (8%)

Farmland of Local Importance 

Alameda County 7 7 (0%) 7 (0%)

Contra Costa County 9,543 9,640 (1%) 9,585 (0%)

San Francisco County 0 0 0

San Mateo County 126 126 (0%) 143 (14%)

Santa Clara County 1,100 1,129 (3%) 1,161 (6%)

Study Area—Bay Area 10,776 10,902 (1%) 10,897 (1%)

Fresno County 3,630 3,660 (1%) 3,637 (0%)

Madera County 1,623 1,767 (9%) 1,767 (9%)

Merced County 3,884 4,013 (3%) 4,013 (3%)

Sacramento County 13,467 13,494 (0%) 13,554 (1%)

San Joaquin County 10,277 10,285 (0%) 10,336 (1%)

Stanislaus County 106 106 (0%) 168 (58%)

Study Area—Central Valley 32,989 33,325 (1%) 33,475 (1%)

Core Study Area 43,765 44,227 (1%) 44,373 (1%)

All Farmland Lost 

Alameda County 4,492 4,643 (3%) 4,492 (0%)

Contra Costa County 21,577 22,155 (3%) 21,889 (1%)

San Francisco County 0 0 0

San Mateo County 680 680 (0%) 697 (3%)

Santa Clara County 6,939 6,988 (1%) 7,235 (4%)

Study Area—Bay Area 33,688 34,466 (2%) 34,313 (2%)

Fresno County 40,293 43,639 (8%) 43,298 (7%)

Madera County 9,449 10,509 (11%) 10,495 (11%)

Merced County 25,882 27,468 (6%) 26,873 (4%)

Sacramento County 48,255 48,329 (0%) 48,937 (1%)

San Joaquin County 62,243 61,492 (-1%) 62,500 (0%)

Stanislaus County 16,215 16,126 (-1%) 18,637 (15%)

Study Area—Central Valley 202,337 207,564 (3%) 210,739 (4%)

Core Study Area 236,025 242,030 (3%) 245,052 (4%)
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 5 Economic Growth and Related Impacts

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 5-25

Area

Acreage of Resource Potentially Affected by Future Urbanization* 

(Percent Change from No Project Alternative)

HST Network Alternatives 

No Project Alternative Pacheco Altamont

* Values in the table indicate the resource acreage that is located in areas that are projected to become urbanized between the 

years 2002 and 2030 under each alternative. Each alternative, including the No Project Alternative, is projected to have a 

unique urbanization footprint; therefore, values are presented for each alternative. 

Source: Cambridge Systematics and Parsons Brinckerhoff 2007. 

The potential induced growth associated with the HST Network Alternatives is projected to affect about 

6,000 to 9,000 ac (2,429 to 3,652 ha) more of farmland for the core study area than the No Project 

Alternative, with the larger impacts being for the Altamont network alternative because of the overall 

higher amount of urbanization under this alternative. These impacts include an additional 3 to 5% more 

prime farmland, 1 to 3% farmland of statewide importance, 7 to 8% unique farmland, and 1% local 

farmland compared to the No Project Alternative. Fresno County is expected to experience the greatest 

absolute loss, about 3,000 ac (1,215 ha) under either HST Network Alternative, or one-third to one-half 

of the total impact. Madera and Merced Counties both will experience impacts of 1,000 ac (405 ha) or 

more under either HST Network Alternative, while Stanislaus County will experience impacts of 2,400 ac 

(972 ha) under the Altamont network alternative. On the other hand, Stanislaus and San Joaquin 

Counties could experience slight gains in farmland under the Pacheco network alternative. The already 

highly urbanized counties of the Bay Area are expected to experience minimal farmland impacts. 

Projected farmland losses beyond the No Project Alternative would include 3,500 to 4,900 ac (1,417 to 

1,984 ha) of prime farmland across the core study area, 800 to 2,200 ac (324 to 891 ha) of farmland of 

statewide interest, 1,300 to 1,400 ac (526 to 567 ha) of unique farmland, and 500 to 600 ac (202 to 243 

ha) of farmland of local importance. Impacts on each category would be greater under the Altamont 

network alternative than the Pacheco network alternative. 

5.4.8 Aesthetics and Visual Resources 

Aesthetics and visual resources refer to the natural and human-made features of a landscape that 

characterize its form, line, texture, and color. The character of the existing landscape takes shape and 

would change in each region over time as a result of land uses, development, and urban growth that may 

occur under any of the alternatives. Increased population or employment related to induced growth 

could contribute to these impacts, as could the redirection of growth into HST station areas and adjacent 

communities. Whether these impacts are viewed as positive or negative depends on the specific nature 

and design of the growth that does occur as well as the subjective opinions of different viewers. In 

general, however, community land use plans and policies increasingly are emphasizing more compact 

development patterns as a preferred alternative to dispersed, low-density development. To the extent 

that the HST Network Alternatives encourage more compact and focused development in station areas, 

and support the preservation of undeveloped land elsewhere in the study area, this could represent a 

positive aesthetic and visual benefit. However, it would be speculative to attempt to characterize 

potential changes at the program level without more specific information about what might be built. 

5.4.9 Utilities and Public Services 

Utilities and public services include electrical transmission lines, natural gas facilities, and wastewater 

treatment facilities. The capacity and extent of these utilities and services would be expected to expand 

gradually or in increments to accommodate the growth in population, employment, and urbanized land 

area expected to occur in California between now and 2030. Because the additional population, 

employment, and land consumption related to growth potentially induced by the HST Network 

Alternatives are relatively small compared to the total growth from existing conditions under the No 

Project Alternative, no considerable impacts are expected in the areas of utilities and public services. As 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 5 Economic Growth and Related Impacts

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 5-26

with many of the resource areas, there are potential county-level differences between the HST Network 

Alternatives as a result of patterns of induced population and employment growth. In northern San 

Joaquin Valley counties, utility and public service needs may be greater under the Altamont network 

alternative. In other San Joaquin Valley and Southern California counties, utility and public service needs 

may be greater under the Pacheco network alternative. Utility and public service needs may be relatively 

similar for the HST Network Alternatives in the Bay Area. 

To the extent that the HST Network Alternatives encourage more compact growth patterns, however, the 

costs of providing utilities and public services potentially could be reduced compared to the costs of 

serving a more dispersed pattern of development. Costs also might be reduced to the extent that specific 

alignments and station locations encourage development in existing, developed areas versus areas that 

currently are undeveloped. 

5.4.10 Hazardous Materials and Wastes 

Increased population or employment related to growth potentially induced by either HST Network 

Alternative would not be expected to increase the likelihood or potential severity of exposure to 

hazardous materials and wastes. No indirect impacts from induced growth are expected in the areas of 

hazardous materials and wastes. 

5.4.11 Cultural and Paleontological Resources 

Future growth is expected to result in large areas of land within and outside of cities being developed to 

urban density levels. However, it would be speculative to identify the likelihood or extent of potential 

impacts of development on prehistoric archaeological sites, historic archaeological sites, traditional 

cultural properties, historic structures, and paleontological resources at the program level without 

knowledge of the precise locations where development projects may be built. In general, both HST 

Network Alternatives are projected to have similar urbanization patterns as the No Project Alternative, 

with increased population and employment growth under the HST Network Alternatives offset by higher 

development density potential in the HST station areas. 

Increased population or employment related to growth potentially induced by either HST Network 

Alternative would not increase the likelihood or extent of potential impacts on cultural or paleontological 

resources. No indirect impacts from induced growth are expected in the areas of cultural and 

paleontological resources. 

5.4.12 Geology and Soils 

Increased population or employment related to growth potentially induced by either HST Network 

Alternative would not increase the likelihood or extent of potential impacts related to geologic formations, 

seismic hazards, slope stability, oil and gas fields, or mineral resources. No indirect impacts from induced 

growth are expected in the areas of geology and soils. 

5.4.13 Hydrology and Water Resources 

The urbanization forecasts that were developed for the analysis of potential growth inducement resulted 

in conceptual urbanization footprints showing the potential future locations of developed areas in the 11 

core study area counties. The footprints show the areas that would be the most likely to become 

urbanized in the future, based on the levels of projected population and employment growth, current 

development patterns, land accessibility, and local regulations and policies. These urbanization footprints 

were combined with GIS-based maps showing general waterway locations to identify waterways that 

would be located in areas of future urbanization. Table 5.4-2 provides estimates of the miles of 

waterways that are in future growth areas and that, in turn, could be affected by this future growth. The 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 5 Economic Growth and Related Impacts

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 5-27

difference between the No Project and the HST Network Alternatives provides an estimate of the 

potential indirect impact of induced growth on hydrology and water resources. 

Induced growth associated with the HST Network Alternatives is projected to affect about 22 to 30 mi 

(35 to 48 km) more of waterways (2 to 3%) across the core study area than the No Project Alternative. 

Higher impacts are expected under the Altamont network alternative than the Pacheco network 

alternative because of the greater amount of urbanization projected under this alternative. The Bay Area 

would experience 9 to 10 mi (14 to 16 km) of waterway impacts, and the Central Valley would experience 

13 to 20 mi (21 to 32 km) of impacts. The greatest impacts on an individual county level would be 8 mi 

in Santa Clara County under the Altamont network alternative, and 8 mi in Fresno County under the 

Pacheco network alternative. 

Table 5.4-2 Hydrology and Water Resources Potentially Affected by Future Urbanization 

Waterways in Areas of Projected Urbanization*, in Miles (Percent 

Change from No Project Alternative)

 HST Network Alternatives 

Area No Project Alternative Pacheco Altamont

Prime Farmland 

Alameda County 215 218 (2%) 215 (0%)

Contra Costa County 84 86 (2%) 85 (1%)

San Francisco County 0 0 0

San Mateo County 51 51 (1%) 51 (1%)

Santa Clara County 77 80 (4%) 84 (10%)

Study Area—Bay Area 426 435 (2%) 436 (2%)

Fresno County 115 123 (7%) 121 (5%)

Madera County 34 35 (5%) 35 (4%)

Merced County 53 58 (9%) 56 (6%)

Sacramento County 135 135 (0%) 139 (3%)

San Joaquin County 191 190 (0%) 193 (1%)

Stanislaus County 54 54 (-1%) 60 (10%)

Study Area—Central 

Valley 583 596 (2%) 603 (3%)

Core Study Area 1,009 1,031 (2%) 1,040 (3%)

* Values in the table indicate the resource acreage that is located in areas that are projected to become urbanized between the 

years 2002 and 2030 under each alternative. Each alternative, including the No Project Alternative, is projected to have a 

unique urbanization footprint; therefore, values are presented for each alternative. 

Source: Cambridge Systematics and Parsons Brinckerhoff 2007. 

5.4.14 Biological Resources 

The urbanization forecasts that were developed for the analysis of potential growth inducement resulted 

in conceptual urbanization footprints showing the potential future locations of developed areas in the 11 

core study area counties. The footprints show the areas that would be the most likely to become 

urbanized in the future, based on the levels of projected population and employment growth, current 

development patterns, land accessibility, and local regulations and policies. These urbanization footprints 

were combined with GIS-based maps showing general locations of habitats in which threatened and 

endangered species may be found, to identify biological resources that could be affected by areas of 

future urbanization. Table 5.4-3 provides estimates of the acreage of potential habitat for threatened 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 5 Economic Growth and Related Impacts

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 5-28

and endangered species that could be affected by this projected future growth. The difference between 

the No Project and the HST Network Alternatives provides an estimate of the indirect impact of induced 

growth on biological resources. 

Induced growth associated with the HST Network Alternatives is projected to affect about 2,600 to 

3,600 ac (1,053 to 1,457 ha) more of threatened and endangered habitat (2–3%) across the core study 

area than the No Project Alternative. Impacts are expected to be greater under the Altamont network 

alternative than the Pacheco network alternative. The largest increases (1,300–1,500 ac [526–607 ha) 

are expected to occur in the Bay Area—particularly Alameda, Contra Costa, and Santa Clara Counties—

representing an increase in affected land area of 4% across all five counties. In the Central Valley, about 

650 ac (263 ha) are expected to be affected under the Altamont network alternative, with little or no net 

impact under the Pacheco network alternative. Fresno and Madera Counties are not expected to 

experience additional impacts under either HST Network Alternative. 

Table 5.4-3 Biological Resources Potentially Affected by Future Urbanization 

Habitat of Threatened and Endangered Species in Areas of Projected 

Urbanization*, in Acres (Percent Change from No Project Alternative) 

 HST Network Alternatives 

Area No Project Alternative Pacheco Altamont

Prime Farmland 

Alameda County 17,297 17,675 (2%) 17,557 (2%)

Contra Costa County 11,372 11,826 (4%) 11,639 (2%)

San Francisco County 0 0 0

San Mateo County 3,002 3,015 (0%) 3,022 (1%)

Santa Clara County 4,356 4,828 (11%) 5,288 (21%)

Study Area—Bay Area 36,027 37,344 (4%) 37,506 (4%)

Fresno County 7,225 7,225 (0%) 7,225 (0%)

Madera County 40 40 (0%) 40 (0%)

Merced County 1,290 1,334 (3%) 1,334 (3%)

Sacramento County 9,442 9,459 (0%) 9,699 (3%)

San Joaquin County 32,714 32,687 (0%) 32,848 (0%)

Stanislaus County 5,098 5,041 (-1%) 5,313 (4%)

Study Area—Central 

Valley 55,809 55,786 (0%) 56,459 (1%)

Core Study Area 127,863 130,474 (2%) 131,471 (3%)

* Values in the table indicate the resource acreage that is located in areas that are projected to become urbanized between 

the years 2002 and 2030 under each alternative. Each alternative, including the No Project Alternative, is projected to have 

a unique urbanization footprint; therefore, values are presented for each alternative. 

Source: Cambridge Systematics and Parsons Brinckerhoff 2007. 

5.4.15 Wetlands 

The urbanization footprints described above in the discussion of farmland and agriculture were combined 

with GIS-based maps showing general wetland locations to identify wetlands that could be affected by 

areas of future urbanization. (See Section 3.15, Biological Resources and Wetlands.) Table 5.4-4 shows 

estimates of the wetland acreage that could be affected by this future growth. The difference between 

the No Project and the HST Network Alternatives provides an estimate of the potential indirect impact of 

induced growth on wetlands. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 5 Economic Growth and Related Impacts

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 5-29

In total, induced growth associated with the HST Network Alternatives is projected to affect about 72 to 

111 ac (29 to 45 ha) more of wetlands across the core study area than the No Project Alternative. This 

represents less than 0.5% of total study area wetlands. Under the Altamont network alternative, just 

over 100 ac (40 ha) are expected to be affected, primarily in Sacramento County. Under the Pacheco 

network alternative, the greatest impacts are expected to be in the Bay Area, particularly Alameda 

County (44 ac [18 ha]). Merced County is also projected to experience impacts of 15–17 ac (6– 7 ha), 

and Stanislaus County would see impacts of 12 ac (5 ha) under the Pacheco network alternative. 

Impacts in other counties would be no more than 5 ac (2 ha). 

Table 5.4-4 Wetlands Potentially Affected by Future Urbanization 

Wetlands Within Areas of Projected Urbanization* (Acres) (Percent 

Change from No Project Alternative)

 HST Network Alternatives 

Area No Project Alternative Pacheco Altamont

Prime Farmland 

Alameda County 8,305 8,350 (1%) 8,305 (0%)

Contra Costa County 608 613 (1%) 608 (0%)

San Francisco County 0 0 0

San Mateo County 2,540 2,540 (0%) 2,540 (0%)

Santa Clara County 4,460 4,460 (0%) 4,465 (0%)

Study Area—Bay Area 15,914 15,963 (0%) 15,919 (0%)

Fresno County 1,050 1,048 (0%) 1,050 (0%)

Madera County 294 297 (1%) 297 (1%)

Merced County 418 435 (4%) 432 (4%)

Sacramento County 3,153 3,158 (0%) 3,225 (2%)

San Joaquin County 1,626 1,626 (0%) 1,631 (0%)

Stanislaus County 324 324 (0%) 336 (4%)

Study Area—Central Valley 6,865 6,887 (0%) 6,971 (2%)

Core Study Area 22,778 22,850 (0%) 22,889 (0%)

* Values in the table indicate the resource acreage that is located in areas that are projected to become urbanized between the 

years 2002 and 2030 under each alternative. Each alternative, including the No Project Alternative, is projected to have a 

unique urbanization footprint; therefore, values are presented for each alternative. 

Source: Cambridge Systematics and Parsons Brinckerhoff 2007. 

5.4.16 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources (Public Parks and Recreation) 

Increased population or employment related to induced growth would not increase the likelihood or 

extent of potential impacts on or uses of Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources, including publicly owned land 

from parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites. No indirect impacts from 

induced growth are expected on Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 5 Economic Growth and Related Impacts

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 5-30

5.5 Growth Inducement and Secondary Impact Differences among HST 

Alignment Alternatives and Station Location Options 

The discussion of induced growth secondary impacts compares the general nature of impacts associated 

with the HST Network Alternatives to the No Project Alternative. Although quantitative employment and 

population impacts were not generated for every alignment and station location option, qualitative 

distinctions nevertheless can be made among these options. 

For this discussion, the difference in impacts will be most significant between the two general choices of 

the Altamont and Pacheco network alternatives. In the primary study area of this environmental analysis, 

the Altamont network alternative would be expected to have a greater influence on all secondary impact 

areas than the Pacheco network alternative for two reasons. First, the Altamont network alternative is 

projected to induce about 6,000 more jobs and 50,000 more residents than the Pacheco network 

alternative in the Bay Area to Central Valley study area. Second, the Altamont network alternative is 

likely to have more stations in total than the Pacheco network alternative, leading to more geographic 

locations that could experience secondary impacts on local and regional traffic, air quality, energy, land 

use, and related ecological resources. 

Madera and Merced Counties are likely to experience the greatest magnitude of secondary impacts 

among all study area counties for both HST Network Alternatives. Based on projected levels of induced 

growth, Stanislaus County is likely to exhibit an equally high magnitude of secondary impacts with the 

Altamont network alternative; under the Pacheco network alternative, Stanislaus County’s secondary 

impacts are likely to be much lower. 

All of the Altamont HST Alignment Alternatives are likely to create equal magnitudes and spatial patterns 

of secondary impacts because all alignments offer relatively similar travel time and station location 

options in the Bay Area. 

The two Pacheco HST Alignment Alternatives, Henry Miller and GEA North, also are likely to produce 

similar patterns of induced growth and secondary impacts for all counties in the core study area. 

Although these two Pacheco alignment alternatives provide noticeably different HST travel times between 

the Bay Area and northern Central Valley, there are equally noticeable, yet opposite, travel time 

differences between the Bay Area and locations south of Merced County. The net effect is that the slight 

congestion reduction and HST ridership benefits provided by the Henry Miller alignment offset the 

accessibility benefits (between the Bay Area and northern Central Valley) provided by the GEA North 

alignment. 

Adding, dropping or changing station locations will lead to changes in potential secondary impacts at the 

station in question as well as in the HST system as a whole. In individual counties, the most notable 

situation is in Merced County, where the SP Downtown station could be on either the Sacramento or 

Southern California HST lines depending upon the alignment followed west of Merced; the Castle AFB 

station, on the other hand, always would be served by HST service between the Bay Area and 

Sacramento. In Stanislaus County, the Amtrak Briggsmore station could lead to the urbanization of 1,000 

more acres in the county than the SP Downtown station site9

, leading to additional indirect impacts; this 

difference between station sites accounts for about 35% of the difference in urbanized area size between 

the Altamont and Pacheco network alternatives noted in Table 5.3-6 for Stanislaus County. In the East 

Bay, HST stations that interface with the BART system may induce larger overall growth and secondary 

impacts attributable to improved regionwide accessibility. On the San Francisco Peninsula, all proposed 

HST stations offer the opportunity for intermodal transfers with Caltrain, and all proposed station sites 

have substantial station-area activity of one form or another. The most likely location for differences in 

 

9 Economic Growth Effects of the System Alternatives for the Program Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact 

Statement, California High-Speed Rail Authority, Section 5.2, July 2003. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 5 Economic Growth and Related Impacts

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 5-31

areawide growth inducement and secondary impacts is with the San Francisco station location. The 

Transbay Transit Center offers better access than the 4th/Townsend site to the high density employment 

and activity center in Downtown San Francisco; this improved accessibility is likely to lead to the potential 

for additional growth inducement and secondary impacts. 

Alternative station locations in the same general vicinity may have different localized secondary impacts, 

but overall impacts throughout the study area are likely to be similar. Different areawide impacts will 

arise from adding or dropping an HST station for a community or subarea as a whole. For example, not 

providing an HST station in the Tri-Valley or Tracy areas likely would lower overall growth inducement 

and secondary impacts because job accessibility and business attraction benefits throughout the study 

area would be lower. A similar situation would occur for the Pacheco network alternative if a station 

were not provided in Gilroy or Morgan Hill; in such a situation, access to the HST system from Monterrey, 

San Benito, and Santa Cruz Counties would be reduced. 

The extent of secondary impacts may not be directly proportional to the amount of induced growth. It 

will depend in part on the specific form of induced development in the study area, which in turn will 

depend on local land use plans and policies. For example, alignment and station locations that serve 

existing urban and community centers, rather than less-developed outlying areas, would be expected to 

result in lower ecological and natural resource impacts, but higher community and social impacts, 

because development would be concentrated in existing built-up areas. The community and social 

effects are likely to be both positive and negative because additional growth in existing communities 

could bring benefits such as jobs, increased property values, and enhancements to the community 

environment. 

5.6 Managing Growth-Inducing and Indirect Effects 

In general, HST station areas would offer a more attractive market for commercial and office 

development than the No Project Alternative. Research and analysis conducted for the Statewide 

Program EIR/EIS10 of urban rail systems in North America and high-speed rail systems in Europe and Asia 

support this conclusion. This research found that industries needing many highly skilled and specialized 

employees are the most attracted to rail-station area development, and that a noticeable densification 

pattern would be likely to emerge in the vicinity of potential HST stations in response to real estate and 

market forces. 

The research and analysis further indicated that an HST station is a considerably stronger draw for 

business development than a conventional intercity rail station or freeway interchange. This draw can 

encourage more compact development patterns, which have the potential to help avoid or minimize 

indirect impacts. These development patterns would likely offer many businesses a competitive 

advantage in their industry, because of proximity to ancillary industries (i.e., industry clustering) and 

access to a well-educated labor force. These advantages, known as economies of agglomeration, have 

emerged around the French and Japanese HST stations. 

The research also found that regulatory-style efforts by cities to encourage increased density and a mix 

of land uses near rail stations have been effective in attracting higher-density development. A Central 

Valley city, for example, would have an easier time redirecting new development to downtown sites 

adjacent to their HST station site than the outlying real estate markets created by freeway interchanges 

under the No Project Alternative. Furthermore, the strong real estate markets around HST stations are 

likely to attract development that otherwise would locate throughout a dispersed suburban region. Thus, 

development around HST stations potentially would consist of both consolidation of currently projected 

 

10 Economic Growth Effects of the System Alternatives for the Program Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact 

Statement, California High-Speed Rail Authority, Section 3.3, July 2003. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 5 Economic Growth and Related Impacts

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 5-32

growth (under the No Project Alternative) and new regional employment and population associated with 

either HST Network Alternative. 

The potential effect of regulatory style land-use strategies was tested in the Statewide Program 

EIR/EIS11. Results suggested that even a modest strategy focused on the immediate station areas could 

reduce the potential statewide urbanized acreage by an additional 30,000 ac (12,141 ha) (0.6% of total 

urbanized acreage in study area) under an HST Network Alternative. These results represent a low-end 

estimate of the possible densification effects of regulatory strategies in combination with the market 

forces likely to occur following the introduction of HST service. The research suggested that other 

jurisdictions have had some success in implementing more aggressive and regionwide regulatory-style 

strategies12 in conjunction with high-capacity intercity and urban transit services. Experience in these 

areas suggests that more aggressive strategies might be more attractive to policy makers because HST 

could offer an economic rationale to developers to cluster new commercial, industrial, and residential 

development to provide easy access to the HST stations. In general, the No Project Alternative does not 

have the potential for such market incentive. 

In short, either HST Network Alternative provides a strong incentive for directing urban growth and 

minimizing a variety of impacts that are frequently associated with growth. This outcome would be seen 

in results for resource topics such as farmland, hydrology, and wetlands, where the indirect effects of 

either HST Network Alternative are in some cases less than the No Project Alternative, even with more 

population and employment expected with the HST Network Alternative. Additional land use strategies, 

which would be highly compatible with either HST Network Alternative, could be considered to further 

reduce development impacts on sensitive natural resources; provide further concentration of employment 

in central areas that tend to be more readily accessible to minority and low-income populations; and 

provide further concentration of a wide variety of activities, making local transit options more feasible and 

possibly reducing local automobile travel. 

 

11 Economic Growth Effects of the System Alternatives for the Program Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact 

Statement, California High-Speed Rail Authority, Section 5.1.3, July 2003. 

12 Examples of these strategies include urban growth boundaries, maximum parking requirements, jobs-housing balance, more 

diversity of land uses, higher densities, and higher service levels of mass transit. 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 6-1

6 HST STATION AREA DEVELOPMENT 

There would be great benefits to enhancing development patterns and increasing development densities 

near proposed HST stations. To provide maximum opportunity for station area development in 

accordance with the purpose, need, and objectives for the HST system, the preferred HST station 

locations would be multi-modal transportation hubs and would typically be in traditional city centers. To 

further these objectives, when making decisions regarding both the final selection of station locations and 

the timing of station development, the Authority would consider the extent to which appropriate station 

area plans and development principles have been adopted by local authorities. 

In addition to potential benefits from minimizing land consumption needs for new growth, dense 

development near HST stations would concentrate activity conveniently located to stations. This would 

increase the use of the HST system, generating additional HST ridership and revenue to benefit the entire 

state. It also would accommodate new growth on a smaller footprint. Reducing the land needed for new 

growth should reduce pressure for new development on nearby habitat areas, in environmentally fragile 

or hazardous areas, and on agricultural lands. Denser development allowances would also enhance joint 

development opportunities at and near the station, which in turn could increase the likelihood of private 

financial participation in construction and operations related to the HST system. A dense development 

pattern can better support a comprehensive and extensive local transit and shuttle system, bike1

 and 

pedestrian paths, and related amenities that can serve the local communities as well as provide access 

and egress to HST stations. The Authority’s adopted policies would ensure that implementation of the 

HST in California would maximize station area development that serves the local community and 

economy while increasing HST ridership. 

6.1 General Principles for HST Station Area Development 

HST station area development principles draw on TOD strategies that have been successfully applied to 

focus compact growth within walking distance of rail stations and other transit facilities. Applying TOD 

measures around HST stations is a strategy that works for large, dense urban areas, as well as smaller 

central cities and suburban areas. TOD can produce a variety of other local and regional benefits by 

encouraging walkable, bikable compact and infill development. Local governments would play a 

significant role in implementing station area development by adopting plans, policies, zoning provisions, 

and incentives for higher densities, and by approving a mix of urban land uses. Almost all TOD measures 

adopted by public agencies involve some form of overlay zoning that designates a station area for 

development intensification, mixed land uses, and improvements to the pedestrian/bicycle environment. 

TOD measures are generally applied to areas within one-half mile of transit stations, and this principal 

would be followed for HST stations. 

Station area development principles that would be applied at the project level for each HST station and 

the areas around the stations would include the following features: 

• Higher density development in relation to the existing pattern of development in the surrounding 

area, along with minimum requirements for density. 

• A mix of land uses (e.g., retail, office, hotels, entertainment, residential) and a mix of housing types 

to meet the needs of the local community. 

• A grid street pattern and compact pedestrian-oriented design that promotes walking, bicycle, and 

transit access with streetscapes that include landscaping, small parks, pedestrian spaces, bike lanes 

and bike racks. 

 

1

 HST will include facilities to accommodate bicycles. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 6 HST Station Area Development 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 6-2

• Context-sensitive building design that considers the continuity of the building sizes and that 

coordinates the street-level and upper-level architectural detailing, roof forms, and the rhythm of 

windows and doors should be provided. New buildings should be designed to complement and 

mutually support public spaces, such as streets, plazas, other open space areas, and public parking 

structures. 

• Limits on the amount of parking for new development and a preference that parking be placed in 

structures. TOD areas typically have reduced parking requirements for retail, office, and residential 

uses due to their transit access and walkability. Sufficient train passenger parking would be essential 

to the system viability, but this should, as appropriate, be offered at market rates (not free) to 

encourage the use of access by transit and other modes. Shared parking would be planned when the 

mix of uses would support it. 

6.2 Implementation of HST Station Area Development Guidelines 

The statewide HST system is likely to have more than 20 stations. The Authority has the powers 

necessary to oversee the construction and operation of a statewide high-speed rail system and to 

purchase the land required for the infrastructure and operations of the system. The responsibility and 

powers needed to focus growth and station area development guidelines in the areas around high-speed 

stations are likely to reside primarily with local government. 

The primary ways in which the Authority can help ensure that the HST system becomes an instrument for 

encouraging maximizing implementation of station area development principles include: 

• Select station locations that are multi-modal transportation hubs with a preference for traditional city 

centers. 

• Adopt HST station area development policies and principles that require TOD, and promote valuecapture at and around station areas as a condition for selecting a HST station site. 

• Provide incentives for local governments where potential HST stations may be located to prepare and 

adopt Station Area Plans and to amend City and County General Plans that incorporate station area 

development principles in the vicinity of HST stations. 

6.2.1 Select Station Locations that Are Multi-Modal Transportation Hubs, Preferably in 

Traditional City Centers. 

HST stations in California would be multi-modal transportation hubs. To meet the Authority’s adopted 

objectives2

, the locations that were selected as potential HST stations would provide linkage with local 

and regional transit, airports, and highways. In particular, convenient links to other rail services (heavy 

rail, commuter rail, light rail, and conventional intercity) would promote TOD at stations by increasing 

ridership and pedestrian activity at these hub stations. A high level of accessibility and activity at the 

stations can make the nearby area more attractive for additional economic activity. 

Most of the potential stations identified for further evaluation are located in the heart of the 

downtown/central city area of California’s major cities. By eliminating potential greenfield sites3

, the 

Authority has described a proposed HST system that meets the objectives of minimizing potential impacts 

on the environment and maximizing connectivity with other modes of transportation. These locations 

also would have the most potential to support infill development and TOD. 

 

2 See the final statewide program EIR/EIS (California High-Speed Rail Authority and Federal Railroad Administration 2005), Section 1.2.1 ,Purpose of High-Speed 

Train System. 

3 Sites in rural areas with very limited or no existing infrastructure. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 6 HST Station Area Development 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 6-3

6.2.2 Adopt HST Station Area Development Policies that Require TOD, and Promote 

Value-Capture at and around Stations as a Condition for Selecting a HST Station 

Site 

Through subsequent CEQA and NEPA processes, the Authority would determine where stations would be 

located and how many HST stations there would be. The Authority has identified TOD and value-capture 

at and around stations sites as essential for promoting HST ridership. The Authority would work with 

local governments to ensure these policies are adopted and implemented.4

Local government would be expected to promote TOD and to use value-capture techniques to finance 

and maintain station amenities and the public spaces needed to create an attractive pedestrian 

environment. Because the HST stations would be public gathering places, value-capture techniques 

should be used to enhance station designs with additional transportation or public facilities. It is the 

Authority’s policy that parking for HST services at HST stations should, as appropriate, be provided at 

market rates (no free parking). The Authority would maximize application of TOD principles during the 

site-specific review of proposed station locations. In addition, for HST stations in the Central Valley, the 

Authority will undertake a comprehensive economic study of the kinds of businesses that would uniquely 

benefit from being located near HST station areas, including a thoroughgoing estimate of the kinds and 

numbers of jobs that such businesses would create. 

The Authority has prescribed the following criteria for HST station locations: 

• To be considered for a station, the proposed site must have the potential to promote higher density, 

mixed-use, pedestrian accessible development around the station. 

• As the HST project proceeds to more detailed study, and before a final station location decision is 

made, the responsible local government(s) are expected to provide (through planning and zoning) 

for TOD around HST station locations. 

• Give priority to stations for which the city and/or county has adopted station area TOD plans and 

general plans that focus and prioritize development on the TOD areas rather than on auto-oriented 

outlying areas. 

• As the project proceeds to more detailed study, local governments are expected to finance (e.g., 

through value-capture or other financing techniques) the public spaces needed to support the 

pedestrian/bicycle traffic generated by hub stations, as well as identifying long-term maintenance of 

the spaces. 

The imperative to link transportation investments with supportive land use was made clear in a recent 

study by the MTC. The study showed that people who both live and work within a half mile of a rail stop 

use transit for 42% of their work trips, more than 10 times as much as others in the region.5

Both BART and MTC have adopted policies that link funding for transit expansion with land use. In July 

2005, MTC adopted a TOD policy for regional expansion projects to help improve the cost effectiveness of 

regional investments. The TOD policy calls for a minimum threshold of housing within a half mile of new 

transit stations. For communities that do not meet the threshold, MTC provides grants to cities for 

community-based planning processes. 

 

4 As part of the “Staff Recommendations” adopted at the January 26, 2005, Authority Board Meeting in Sacramento. 

5 Characteristics of Rail and Ferry Station Area Residents in the San Francisco Bay Area: Evidence from the 2000 Bay Area Travel Survey. Volume 1. MTC, 

September 2006. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 6 HST Station Area Development 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 6-4

BART's Strategic Plan mandates that BART partner with communities to make investment choices that 

encourage and support TOD and increased transit use. BART's System Expansion Policy helps determine 

where new expansions will go, in part based on a commitment by the municipality to help generate new 

ridership with transit-supportive growth and development, as well as a high level of access by local 

transit, bicycle, and walking to the new station. The BART and MTC policies offer different approaches 

for TOD; one uses minimum thresholds for housing units and the other that focuses on a level of 

ridership provided. The Authority will analyze these policies and others like it throughout the country in 

developing specific TOD guidelines. 

6.2.3 Provide Incentives for Local Governments in which Potential HST Stations Would 

Be Located to Prepare and Adopt Station Area Plans, Amend City and County 

General Plans, and Encourage TOD in the Vicinity of HST Stations 

Throughout future environmental processes and the implementation of the HST, the Authority would 

continue to work closely with the communities being considered for HST stations. It is important to 

understand HST as a system that will have regional as well as statewide ridership. It will provide an 

opportunity to improve and expand local transit systems leading to the HST stations and to have 

additional job and housing growth along those transit corridors. 

Local governments can use a number of mechanisms to encourage higher density HST-oriented 

development in and around potential HST station locations and to minimize undesirable growth effects. 

These include developing plans (such as specific plans, transit village plans, regional plans, and 

greenbelts), development agreements, zoning overlays, and, in some cases, use of redevelopment 

authority. 

Increased density of development in and around HST stations would provide public benefits beyond the 

benefits of access to the HST system itself. Such benefits could include relief from traffic congestion, 

improved air quality, promotion of infill development, preservation of natural resources, more affordable 

housing, promotion of job opportunities, reduction in energy consumption, and better use of public 

infrastructure. The Authority and local government working together would determine which 

mechanisms best suit each community and could be implemented to enhance the benefits possible from 

potential HST station development. 

Most successful contemporary examples of urban development are the product of long-term strategic 

planning. For example, in France and Japan, where there has been considerable success guiding new 

development around HST stations, local governments typically prepare long-term plans that focus growth 

at each HST station area. Regional plans are also typically used to coordinate station area development 

with existing urban areas and reserves for parks, agriculture, and natural habitat. 

Over the last 5 years, four of the major regions of California—Los Angeles, San Diego, Sacramento, and 

the Bay Area—have developed regional blueprints. Eight counties in the Central Valley are now 

conducting their own blueprint process. All of these blueprints focus on supporting the existing 

downtowns and increasing transit ridership as critical ways for future growth to be environmentally and 

economically sustainable. The HST could provide a major boost to these blueprints by greatly increasing 

access to the downtowns, directly supporting local and regional rail systems, and indirectly supporting 

bus and light rail systems with an infusion of additional riders. 

A useful starting point for station area development is to work with the community to identify needs and 

missing assets they would like to see as part of any new development, such as parks, libraries, and food 

stores and to assess the market sizes needed to attract and retain such uses. Local government can also 

review the availability of land around potential station sites to achieve development that is of sufficient 

size to be economically viable. Then an illustrative site and phasing plan for a station area that is realistic 

from a market perspective can be developed and shared with the community. Finally, a station area plan 

can be prepared, which would ensure the community and potential developers of a public commitment to 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 6 HST Station Area Development 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 6-5

promote compact, efficient, TOD around station areas. Infrastructure improvements for station area 

development should be included in the station area plan. 

Significant growth is expected in large areas of California with or without an HST system. The proposed 

HST system, however, would be consistent with and promote the state’s adopted smart growth 

principles6

 and could be a catalyst for wider adoption of smart growth principles in communities near HST 

stations. With strong companion policies and good planning, HST stations should encourage infill 

development, help protect environmental and agricultural resources by encouraging more efficient land 

use, and minimize ongoing cost to taxpayers by making better use of our existing infrastructure. 

The Authority’s selection of station locations and the timing of station development would consider 

adherence to the principles in the section. In pursuing its objective of providing a profitable and 

successful HST, the Authority will use its resources, both financial and otherwise, to encourage the local 

government authority with development jurisdiction at and around potential HST stations to take the 

following steps: 

• In partnership with the Authority, develop a station area plan7

 for all land within a half mile of the 

HST pedestrian entrance that adheres to the station area development principles (described above). 

• Use a community planning process to plan the street, pedestrian, bicycle environment, parks and 

open spaces, and other amenities. 

• Incorporate the station area plan through amendment of the city or county general plan and zoning. 

• Use community planning processes to develop regional plans and conform amendments to general 

plans, which would focus development in existing communities and would provide for long-term 

protection of farmland, habitat, and open space. 

 

6 As expressed in the Wiggins Bill (AB857, 2003), and in government code 65041.1. 

7 Such a plan could take the form of a specific plan pursuant to California Government Code sections 65450–65457 or a Transit Village Development Plan 

pursuant to California Government Code sections 65460–65460.10, which specify the content for such a plan, or another form as determined appropriate by local 

government. 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 7-1

7 HIGH-SPEED TRAIN NETWORK AND ALIGNMENT 

ALTERNATIVES COMPARISONS 

7.1 Introduction 

7.1.1 Purpose and Content of This Chapter 

The purpose of this chapter is to summarize and compare the physical and operational characteristics and 

potential environmental consequences associated with different combinations of alignment alternatives 

that comprise the HST Network Alternatives, as well as differences among alignment alternatives and 

potential station location options. This chapter summarizes potential environmental consequences for 

each of 21 representative network alternatives for the environmental resource areas where relative 

differences were identified (refer to Chapter 3 under Affected Environment, Environmental 

Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies for a comprehensive presentation of potential environmental 

consequences in each environmental resource area for each alignment alternative). The 21 

representative network alternatives present a range of reasonable alternatives among the three basic 

approaches for linking the Bay Area and Central Valley: Altamont Pass (11 network alternatives); 

Pacheco Pass (6 network alternatives); and Pacheco Pass with Altamont Pass (local service) (4 network 

alternatives). 

For many of the environmental topics discussed in this chapter, the quantities presented represent areas 

within which potential impacts might occur. For example, the area of floodplains includes all floodplains 

within 100 ft (30.5 m) of either side of the centerline of the alignment considered; whereas the right-ofway necessary for the improvements considered is smaller (e.g., only 25 ft [7.6 m] on either side of the 

centerline for the HST infrastructure). Therefore the magnitude of potential impacts reported in this 

document is considerably larger than the actual impacts that would be expected from the HST system 

within the study area. 

7.1.2 Organization of This Chapter 

The network alternatives and alignment alternatives comparisons are presented in tabular form. The 

station location options are presented individually and compared where multiple options are considered 

for the same general station area. The network alternatives, alignment alternatives, and station location 

options are briefly described in the tables and illustrated on the associated maps. For each alternative 

comparison, the following summary information is presented and compared where relative differences 

were identified. 

• Physical/operational characteristics. 

− Alignment. 

− Length. 

− Capital cost. 

− Travel time. 

− Ridership. 

− Constructability. 

− Operational issues. 

• Potential environmental impacts. 

− Transportation and related topics (travel conditions, noise and vibration). 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 7 Network Alternatives 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 7-2

− Human environment (land use and community impacts, farmlands and agriculture, aesthetics and 

visual resources, and socioeconomics). 

− Cultural resources (archaeological resources, historical properties) and paleontological resources. 

− Natural environment (geology and seismic hazards, hydrology and water resources, and 

biological resources and wetlands). 

− Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources (certain types of publicly owned parklands, recreation areas, 

wildlife/waterfowl refuges, and historical sites). 

The environmental topics for traffic, energy and air quality are not included in this chapter. The network 

alternatives have the potential to reduce overall air pollution, total energy consumption, and traffic 

congestion as compared to the No Project Alternative. The representative base HST forecast would result 

in a reduction of 22 million barrels of oil and 17.6 billion pounds of CO2 emissions annually by 2030, as 

compared to the No Project Alternative. Diversions from the automobile to HST could lead to a projected 

5% statewide reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on the highway system, with VMT reductions of 

between 7% and 12% in Bay Area and Central Valley counties. 

The network alternatives with the highest ridership levels show the greatest reductions in VMT on the 

roadways in the region. The reduction in VMTs results in a corresponding reduction in vehicular 

emissions, energy consumption, and traffic. Therefore, in this chapter ridership is a proxy for traffic, 

energy and air quality benefits since the network alternatives with the highest ridership would have the 

greatest traffic, energy and air quality benefits. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

7.2 Network Alternatives The HST Network Alternatives represent different ways to implement the HST system in the study region along combinatio

Alternatives and station location options. The HST system would continue outside the study region to the major metropolias described in the statewide program EIR/EIS (California High-Speed Rail Authority and Federal Railroad Administration 2are many possible combinations of alignment alternatives and station location options, 21 representative network alternativ

(Section 2.5 and Table 2.5-1) and the findings for these alternatives are presented in tabular form in the following sections

possible network combinations of alignment alternatives are possible. The following network alternatives have been select

sample to help identify major distinctions between network options and to define major tradeoffs among the possible netw

Central Valley Region. The network alternatives vary in their ability to meet the purpose and need and objectives of the HSadditional data to inform the future identification of preferred alignment alternatives and station location options. Although Alternatives and station location options were screened and evaluated to identify those that are likely to be reasonable and 

the project’s purpose and need, the representative HST Network Alternatives have not yet been so evaluated. The networ

developed to enable an evaluation and comparison of how various combinations of alignment alternatives would meet the 

need and how each would perform as a HST network (e.g., travel times between various station locations, anticipated ride

maintenance costs, energy consumption, and auto trip diversions). The different system characteristics as well as environm

network alternatives present complex choices that will be better supported and informed following public review and comm
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

7.2.1 Altamont Pass Alternatives 

A. SAN FRANCISCO AND SAN JOSE TERMINI The San Francisco and San Jose termini network alternative is shown in Figure 7.2-1 and described in Table 7.2-1. Ththis representative alternative are Caltrain Corridor (San Francisco to Dumbarton), Dumbarton (high bridge)1, Niles/I-8

San Jose via I-880)2, East Bay Connection (Dumbarton/Niles XS), UPRR (Niles to Altamont), Tracy Downtown (UPRR C

(Central Valley). 

Table 7.2-1 

Altamont Pass: San Francisco and San Jose Termini (Base Case for Altamont Pass) 

Physical/Operational Characteristics Network Alternative Description From San Francisco to Redwood City, this network alternative would use the existing Caltrain 

would cross the San Francisco Bay in the Dumbarton corridor. To San Jose, the Niles/I-880 awould be used south of Niles. The Altamont Pass would use the UPRR alignment alternative tand the Central Valley would use the UPRR N/S alignment alternative. Station location options alternative are Transbay Transit Center, Millbrae/SFO, Redwood City (Caltrain), Fremont (War

(Diridon), Pleasanton (I-680/Bernal Road), Tracy (Downtown), Modesto (Downtown), and Mer

Length 203.34 mi (327.24 km) Cost (dollars) $12.7 billion Express Travel Times (minutes) SF–LA=2:36; SF–Sac=1:06; SF–Fresno=1:18; SJ–LA=2:19 ; SJ–Sac=0:49; SJ–Fresno=1:01; L

Tracy–LA=1:59; SF–Tracy=0:42; SJ–Tracy=0:25. 

Ridership This network alternative would directly serve downtown San Francisco and SFO, San Jose, the 

portion of the I-880 corridor, and the Central Valley and would have high ridership and revenuridership and revenue for the statewide HST system with this network alternative is forecast to passengers and $2.84–$3.8 billion per year by 20303. 

Constructability Constructing a new bridge crossing along the Dumbarton corridor would involve major constru

sensitive wetlands, saltwater marshes, and aquatic habitat. Special construction methods and required. Portions of this network alternative include alignments in or along operating commulines. Maintaining operations on the existing commuter and intercity rail service while constru

tunnels, elevated sections, and stations would involve considerable construction issues/challeninfrastructure could be constructed incrementally to minimize impact to existing operations. 

1 Does not include “Dumbarton Wye South to Caltrain” segment. 2 Does not include Niles Junction to Niles Wye S (“Niles/I-880 5A”) segment. 3 The “Base Case” network alternative for the Altamont Pass and Pacheco Pass show a range for ridership and revenue forecasts where the “low-end” is 

“high-end” is the high-end sensitivity analysis. For all other network alternatives, ridership and revenue numbers are only shown for the base case (low-
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

San Francisc

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.2-1 

Altamont Pass: San Francisco and San Jose Termini (Base Case for Altamont Pass) 

O & M Cost (dollars per year) $1,099 million 

Operational Issues Average Speed 

SF–LA=168.8 mph (281.2kph); SF–Sac=129.5 mph (215.8 kph); SF–Fresno=148.0 mph (246.

SJ–LA=178.7 mph (297.9 kph);SJ–Sac=144.1 mph (240.2 kph);SJ–Fresno=165 mph (275 kphmph (304.8 kph); Tracy–LA=183.4 mph (305.7 kph); SF–Tracy=107.1 mph (178.5 kph); SJ–T

Maximum Speed SF–LA=210 mph (350 kph); SF–Sac=198 mph (330 kph); SF–Fresno=210 mph (350 kph); SJ–LA=210 mph (350 kph);SJ–Sac=198 mph (330 kph);SJ–Fresno=210 mph (350 kph); Liverkph); Tracy–LA=210 mph (350 kph); SF–Tracy=169.2 mph (282 kph); SJ–Tracy=180 mph (30

This network alternative would require the system to split in two separate directions to serve bFrancisco, given a constant number of trains. This decreases the frequency of service from sothese stations by a factor of two as compared to network alternatives using the Pacheco Pass 

Based on forecasted travel demand, two-thirds of the trains would be directed to San Francisc

trains would be directed to San Jose. HST operations would need to be coordinated and integ

service on the San Francisco Peninsula and ACE service in the I-580 corridor. 

Potential Environmental Impacts Travel Conditions This network alternative would cross the San Francisco Bay in the Dumbarton corridor. The C

would bring direct HST service up the San Francisco Peninsula to downtown San Francisco, wi

downtown San Francisco, at SFO (Millbrae), a mid-Peninsula station at Redwood City, an East 

(Warm Springs), a South Bay station at San Jose (Diridon), a Tri-Valley station at Pleasanton (

downtown station in Tracy, and Central Valley stations in Modesto and Merced. This network 

increase connectivity and accessibility to San Francisco, the northern peninsula and SFO (the hfor northern California), southern Alameda County, San Jose, the I-580 corridor and Tri-Valley Valley. This network alternative would provide a safer, more reliable, energy-efficient intercity northern part of the San Francisco Peninsula, while improving the safety, reliability, and perfo

commuter service. This network alternative would greatly increase the capacity for intercity areduce existing automobile traffic. The fully grade-separated Caltrain corridor north of Redwo

local traffic flow and reduce air pollution at existing rail crossings. There would also be some 

in the UPRR in the I-580 corridor and UPRR N/S alignment alternative through the Central Valalternative would not provide direct HST service to Oakland, Oakland International Airport, or 

County. 

Noise and Vibration:i High, 

medium, or low potential impacts 

Medium potential for noise impacts for the overall alternative, with a high potential for noise im

corridor. Medium potential for vibration impacts for the overall alternative. Medium potential from San Francisco/San Jose to downtown Tracy, and an overall low potential in the Central V

of urban areas. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.2-1 

Altamont Pass: San Francisco and San Jose Termini (Base Case for Altamont Pass) 

Along the Caltrain corridor from Redwood City to San Francisco, there would be an increase in increased frequency of trains. There would be a reduction in noise levels due to the eliminationoise from existing services as a result of the grade separations at existing grade crossings. 

Land Use and Planning, Communities and Neighborhoods, Property, and Environmental Justice 

Compatibility: Majority of network alternative is compatible (high rating), given that it is withiadjacent to an existing major rail or highway right-of-way. It exhibits low compatibility where 

transportation right-of-way in the Altamont Pass area. It exhibits a medium to high compatibiSan Francisco Bay, in Fremont along the more narrow Centerville line, and in the Shinn area. 

compatibility in the Lathrop, Manteca, Modesto and Merced areas. Environmental Justice: This network alternative has medium environmental justice rating for 

(north of Redwood City) and the East Bay alignment to San Jose and low environmental justicalignment from Niles Canyon to the Central Valley. Environmental justice is rated as medium 

except in the Manteca area, where the rating is low. Community: This network alternative would not affect community cohesion, given that the mwithin or immediately adjacent to an existing major rail or highway right-of-way. Property: This network alternative has the potential for high property impacts in the Niles Can

Manteca areas, where additional right-of-way would be required. 

Aesthetics and Visual Resources: General impacts and rating. 

Segments visual ratings: (1) Caltrain – San Francisco to Dumbarton =low; (2) Niles Junction t

(3) UPRR =medium; (4) Tracy Downtown =low (5) Dumbarton High Bridge =medium; and (6Overall network alternative rating is low to medium 

Farmlands:ii Ac (ha) potentially 

affected 

Farmland: 764.2 ac (309.28 ha). Impact up to 429.1 ac (173.65 ha) of prime farmland. The majority of potential farmland impthe Tracy and the UPRR (North/South) segments. Overall, this network alternative along with 

Oakland, and San Jose Termini would have the greatest potential impact on farmland in the Aalternatives. The difference in overall farmland impacts in the Altamont Pass network alternat(3.6 ha). 

Cultural Resources and Paleontological Resources:iii

Potential presence of historical resources in area of potential effect 

There are 151 known cultural resources. This network alternative extends through numerous historic districts in San Francisco. Historic 

dating from the 1900s are within the area of potential effects, along with water delivery systemfrom the 1890s, freeway bridges dating from the 1940s, and residential properties dating from Archaeological resources in the area of the Dumbarton crossing include prehistoric sites assoc

historic sites from early 1900s industrial activities. Overall, this network alternative was identimoderate sensitivity for cultural resources. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.2-1 

Altamont Pass: San Francisco and San Jose Termini (Base Case for Altamont Pass) 

Hydrology and Water Resources:iv

Potential impacts and associated ac (ha) of floodplains and linear ft (m) of streams within potential impact study areas, ac (ha) lakes/other water bodies within study areas. 

Floodplains: 308.3 ac (124.76 ha) direct and 969.4 ac (392.30 ha) indirect. Streams: 16,824 linear ft (5,127.9 linear m) direct and 71,320 linear ft (21,738.30 linear m) inLakes/Waterbodies: 39.6 ac (16.03 ha) direct and 154.9 ac (62.68 ha) indirect. Of the Altamont Pass network alternatives, this network alternative along with four other netwidentified as having the highest area of impact on lakes and the San Francisco Bay due to the This network alternative was also identified as having the potential to impact the most groundPotentially affect San Francisco Bay, Guadalupe River, San Joaquin River, Stanislaus River, TuoRiver, and Chowchilla River, as well as the Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct, South Bay Aqueduct, and among other water resources. Includes tunnels that would avoid impacts on the floodplain anresources and aerial structures that would minimize impacts on floodplains, streams, creeks, a

Biological Resources IncludingWetlands Ac (ha) of wetland, linear ft (m) of non-wetland waters, and number of special-status species within potential impact study areas 

Wetlandsv: 45.9 ac (18.59 ha) direct and 2,526 ac (1,022.2 ha) indirect. 

Nonwetland Waters: 16,773 linear ft (5,122.4 linear m). Species: 56 special-status plant and 50 special-status wildlife species. Of the Altamont Pass network alternatives, this network alternative along with two other netwhave the potential to impact the most special-status wildlife species. This alternative could poon biological resources in San Francisco Bay as a result of the Dumbarton crossing. Potentiallspecial-status plant and wildlife species, wetlands, and waters. This network alternative would be along existing transportation corridors, with some portions Potentially result in a barrier to the movement of wildlife in areas where it severs wildlife movewith conservation and restoration plans and special management , such as the Don Edwards SNational Wildlife Refuge. The placement of the alignment and stations and use of tunnels and 

minimize impacts on biological resources. 

Fault Crossings San Bruno (Potentially Active) – At Grade Hayward (Active) – At Grade 

Silver Creek (Potentially Active) – Above Grade Calaveras (Active) – Tunnel Livermore (Potentially Active) – Above Grade Greenville (Active) – Above Grade Vernalis (Active) – At Grade Buried Trace of Unnamed Fault (Potentially Active) - At Grade Silver Creek (Potentially Active) - At Grade Hayward (Active) - Above Grade Mission (Potentially Active) - At Grade 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.2-1 

Altamont Pass: San Francisco and San Jose Termini (Base Case for Altamont Pass) 

Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources:4

Number of resources rated high potential direct effects 

There are 32 public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges that are 0-150 ft (4network alternative. Few potential direct impacts are anticipated because much of the networdirectly adjacent to existing transportation rights-of-way, and few resources exist in areas whealternative is not adjacent to or within this existing right-of-way. Exceptions include the Augu

i Generally, vibration is not a significant impact. However, sensitive and specific areas, such as historical structures and special habitats, could be affii The farmland resources study area is defined as 25 ft (7.6 m) on each side of the alignment. When the alignment is adjacent to an existing rail corri

ft (15 m) from the rail right-of-way on the side the alignment would run. The study area for impacts of stations is the station area footprint. 

iii The cultural resources and paleontological resources study area is defined as the area within 500 ft (152 m) on each side of the alignment centerline 

from centerline along existing transportation facilities, and 500 ft (152 m) around station locations. 

iv The hydrology and water resources study area is defined as 25 ft (7.6 m) on each side of the alignment for two tracks and as 50 ft (15 m) on each sid

tracks. The study area for indirect impacts is 50 ft (15 m) on each side of the alignment for two tracks and as 100 ft (30 m) on each side of centerlin

area for direct impacts of stations is the station area footprint, and the study area for indirect impact for stations is 50 ft (15 m) from the outside edge 

v The biological resources and wetlands study area for direct impacts is defined as 50 ft (15 m) on each side of the alignment in urban areas and 0.25 

The study area for indirect impacts is 1,000 ft (305 m) in urban areas and 0.25 mi (0.41 km) in rural areas on each side of the alignment. The study stations is the station area, and the study area for indirect impacts for stations is 1,000 ft (305 m) in urban areas and 0.25 mi (0.41 km) in rural areas station footprint area.

4 The 4(f) and 6(f) resources study area is defined as 900 ft (274 m) on each side of the alignment centerline. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

B. OAKLAND AND SAN JOSE TERMINI This network alternative is shown in Figure 7.2-2 and described in Table 7.2-2. The segments used for this representaNiles/I-880 (West Oakland to Niles Junction), Niles/I-880 (Niles Junction to San Jose via I-880)5, East Bay Connections 

and Dumbarton/Niles XS), UPRR (Niles to Altamont), Tracy Downtown (UPRR Connection), and UPRR (Central Valley). 

Table 7.2-2 

Altamont Pass: Oakland and San Jose Termini 

Physical/Operational Characteristics Network Alternative Description From Oakland to San Jose, this network alternative would use the Niles/I-880 Alignment. The 

use the UPRR Alignment through downtown Tracy, and the Central Valley would use the UPRR 

location options considered for this alternative are West Oakland/7th Street, Coliseum/Airport, 

Jose (Diridon), Pleasanton (I-680/Bernal Road), Tracy (Downtown), Modesto (Downtown), an

Length 182.16 mi (293.17 km) Cost (dollars) $10.0 billion Express Travel Times (minutes) Oakland–LA=2:23; Oakland–Sac=0:53; Oakland–Fresno=1:04; SJ–LA=2:19; SJ–Sac=0:49; SJ

Livermore–LA=2:06; LA–Tracy=1:59; Oakland–Tracy=0:29; SJ–Tracy=0:25. 

Ridership This network alternative would directly serve downtown San Jose and Oakland, with a station 

International Airport (Coliseum/BART), the I-580 and I-880 corridors, and the Central Valley a

ridership and revenue potential. Total ridership and revenue for the statewide HST system wialternative is forecast to be 88 million passengers and $2.88 billion per year by 2030. Ridershalternative would be about the same as the Altamont “Base Case” network alternative. 

Constructability Portions of this network alternative are aligned in or along existing passenger rail lines and hig

operations on the existing passenger rail service and automobile traffic while constructing gradelevated sections, and stations would involve major construction issues/challenges. However, 

could be constructed incrementally to minimize impact to existing operations. 

O & M Cost (dollars per year) $1,085 million Operational Issues Average Speed 

SF–LA=168.8 mph (281.2kph); SF–Sac=129.5 mph (215.8 kph); SF–Fresno=148.0 mph (246.

SJ–LA=178.7 mph (297.9 kph);SJ–Sac=144.1 mph (240.2 kph);SJ–Fresno=165 mph (275 kphmph (304.8 kph); Tracy–LA=183.4 mph (305.7 kph); SF–Tracy=107.1 mph (178.5 kph); SJ–T

Maximum Speed SF–LA=210 mph (350 kph); SF–Sac=198 mph (330 kph); SF–Fresno=210 mph (350 kph); 

5 Does not include Niles Junction to Niles Wye S (“Niles/I-880 5A”) segment. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.2-2 

Altamont Pass: Oakland and San Jose Termini 

SJ–LA=210 mph (350 kph);SJ–Sac=198 mph (330 kph);SJ–Fresno=210 mph (350 kph); Liverkph); Tracy–LA=210 mph (350 kph); SF–Tracy=169.2 mph (282 kph); SJ–Tracy=180 mph (30

This network alternative would require the system to split in two separate directions to serve bOakland, given a constant number of trains. This decreases the frequency of service from soustations by a factor of two, as compared to network alternatives using the Pacheco Pass alignm

on forecasted travel demand, two-thirds of the trains would be directed to Oakland and one-thbe directed to San Jose. HST operations would need to be coordinated and integrated with ACcorridor. 

Potential Environmental Impacts Travel Conditions The Niles/I-880 corridor alignment alternatives would bring direct HST service up the East Bay 

potential stations in West Oakland at Oakland International Airport (Coliseum/BART), in the Eastations in Union City (BART) and San Jose (Diridon), in the Tri-Valley with a station in Pleasan

Road), in downtown Tracy, and in the Central Valley with stations in Modesto and Merced. Th

would increase connectivity and accessibility to Oakland, the Oakland International Airport (Co

Alameda County, San Jose, the I-580 Corridor and Tri-Valley area, and the Central Valley. Thwould provide a safer, more reliable, energy efficient intercity mode along the East Bay while reliability, and performance of the regional commuter service. This network alternative would capacity for intercity and commuter travel and reduce existing automobile traffic. The fully gr

880 alignment alternative between Oakland and Union City would improve local traffic flow an

existing rail crossings. There would also be some grade separation benefits in the UPRR in the 

UPRR N/S alignment alternative through the Central Valley. This network alternative would noservice to San Francisco, SFO, the San Francisco Peninsula/Caltrain Corridor, and South Santa 

Noise and Vibration:i High, 

medium, or low potential impacts 

Medium potential of noise impacts for the overall alternative. Medium potential of vibration im

alternative. High potential of vibration impacts from Oakland to Niles Junction. Medium potentfrom Niles Junction/San Jose to downtown Tracy and a low potential in the Central Valley. 

Land Use and Planning, Communities and Neighborhoods, Property, and Environmental Justice 

Compatibility: Majority of network alternative is compatible (high rating), given that it is withiadjacent to an existing major rail or highway rights-of-way. It exhibits low compatibility wher

transportation right-of-way in the Altamont Pass area. It exhibits a medium compatibility in thModesto and Merced areas. Environmental Justice: This network alternative has medium environmental justice impact ratbetween Oakland and San Jose and low environmental justice impact rating for the UPRR aligto the Central Valley. Environmental justice impact is rated as medium in the Central Valley earea, where the impact rating is low. Community: This network alternative would not affect community cohesion, given that the m

within or immediately adjacent to an existing major rail or highway rights-of-way. Property: This network alternative has the potential for high property impacts in the Niles Canwhere additional right-of-way would be required. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Oakla

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.2-2 

Altamont Pass: Oakland and San Jose Termini 

Aesthetics and Visual Resources: General impacts and rating. 

Segments visual ratings: (1) Oakland to Niles Junction =low; (2) Niles Junction to San Jose ==medium; (4) Tracy Downtown =low; and (5) UPRR N/S =low. Overall network alternative ra

Farmlands:ii Ac (ha) potentially 

affected 

Farmland: 761.9 ac (308.33 ha). Impact up to 426.8 ac (172.71 ha) of prime farmland. The majority of potential farmland imp

the Tracy and the UPRR (North/South) segments. Overall, this network alternative would havfarmland within the Altamont Pass network alternatives. 

Cultural Resources and Paleontological Resources:iii

Potential presence of historical resources in area of potential effect 

There are 128 known cultural resources. Historic properties and buildings dating from the 1900s are within the area of potential effects delivery systems and canals dating from the 1890s, freeway bridges dating from the 1940s, andating from the 1880s. Overall, this network alternative was identified as having a high sensit

resources. 

Hydrology and Water Resources:iv

Potential impacts and associated ac (ha) of floodplains and linear ft (m) of streams within potential impact study areas, ac (ha) lakes/other water bodies within study areas. 

Floodplains: 218.6 ac (88.48 ha) direct/ 720.4 ac (291.56 ha) indirect Streams: 17,660 linear ft (5,382.7 linear m) direct/ 76,905 linear ft (23,440.49 linear m) indirLakes/Waterbodies: 2.3 ac (0.93 ha) direct/ 7.6 ac (3.08 ha) indirect Of the Altamont Pass network alternatives, this network alternative along with four other netwidentified to have the least area of impact on lakes and would not result in impacts on San FraPotentially affect Guadalupe River, San Joaquin River, Stanislaus River, Tuolumne River, Merce

River as well as the Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct, South Bay Aqueduct, and California Aqueduct amresources. Includes tunnels that would avoid impacts on the floodplain and above ground wastructures that would minimize impact on floodplains and streams, creeks, and channels. 

Biological Resources IncludingWetlands Ac (ha) of wetland, linear ft (m) of non-wetland waters, and number of special-status species within potential impact study areas 

Wetlandsv: 12.3 ac (4.97 ha) direct/ 805 ac (325.7 ha) indirect 

Non-Wetland Waters: 14,032 linear ft (4,277.0 linear m) Species: 40 special-status plant and 44 special-status wildlife species Potentially significant impacts to special-status plant and wildlife species, wetlands, and waterNetwork alternative would be along existing transportation corridors with some portions in new 

Potentially result in a barrier to the movement of wildlife in areas where it severs wildlife movewith conservation and restoration plans and special management areas. The placement of the and use of tunnels and aerial structures would minimize impacts on biological resources. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.2-2 

Altamont Pass: Oakland and San Jose Termini 

Fault Crossings Hayward (Active) – At Grade - Adjacent and Parallel Hayward (Active) – At Grade 

Silver Creek (Potentially Active) – Above Grade Calaveras (Active) – Tunnel Livermore (Potentially Active) – Above Grade Greenville (Active) – Above Grade Vernalis (Active) – At Grade 

Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources:4Number of resources rated high potential direct effects 

There are 29 public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges that are 0–150 ft (4network alternative. Few potential direct impacts are anticipated given that much of the netw

or directly adjacent to existing transportation rights-of-way, and few resources exist in areas walternative is not adjacent to or within this existing right-of-way. Exceptions include the Augu
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

C. SAN FRANCISCO, OAKLAND, AND SAN JOSE TERMINI This network alternative is shown in Figure 7.2-3 and described in Table 7.2-3. The segments used for this representaCaltrain Corridor (SF to Dumbarton), Dumbarton (High Bridge)6, Niles/I-880 (West Oakland to Niles Junction), Niles/I-8

San Jose via I-880)7, East Bay Connections (Dumbarton/Niles XS & Dumbarton/Niles XN), UPRR (Niles to Altamont), Tr

Connection), and UPRR (Central Valley). 

Table 7.2-3 

Altamont Pass: San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose Termini 

Physical/Operational Characteristics Network Alternative Description From Oakland to San Jose, this network alternative would use the Niles/I-880 Alignment. Fro

Redwood City, this network alternative would use the existing Caltrain rail right-of-way. This would cross the San Francisco Bay in the Dumbarton corridor. The Altamont Pass would use tthrough downtown Tracy, and the Central Valley would use the UPRR N/S Alignment. Station considered for this alternative are Transbay Transit Center, Millbrae/SFO, Redwood City (Caltr

Street, Coliseum/Airport, Union City (BART), San Jose (Diridon), Pleasanton (I-680/Bernal RoaModesto (Downtown), and Merced (Downtown). 

Length 241.16 mi (388.12 km) Cost (dollars) $15.1 billion8Express Travel Times (minutes) SF–LA=2:36; Oakland–LA=2:23; SJ–LA=2:19; SF–Sac=1:06; Oakland–Sac=0:53; SJ–Sac=0:4

Oakland–Fresno=1:04; SJ–Fresno=1:01; Livermore–LA=2:06; Tracy–LA=1:59; SF–Tracy=0:4SJ–Tracy=0:25 

Ridership This network alternative would directly serve downtown San Francisco and San Francisco Inte

Oakland and the Oakland International Airport (Coliseum/BART), San Jose and the I-580 and Central Valley. The ridership and revenue is less for this network alternative than other Altambecause of the reduced frequency of service to major markets (some trains serving Oakland, ssome San Jose). Total ridership and revenue for the statewide HST system with this network be 81.1 million passengers and $2.63 billion per year by 2030. Additional frequency of service 

Jose, and Oakland (along with higher operational costs) would be needed to increase ridership 

alternative. Ridership for this network alternative is forecast to be about 7.7% less than the A

network alternative. 

6 Does not include “Dumbarton Wye South to Caltrain” segment. 7 Does not include Niles Junction to Niles Wye S (“Niles/I-880 5A”) segment. 8 Includes terminal at 4th and King. Does not include segment cost from 4th Street to Transbay Transit Center or station cost for the Transbay Transit Cen
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.2-3 

Altamont Pass: San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose Termini 

Constructability Constructing a new bridge crossing along the Dumbarton corridor would involve major constru

sensitive wetlands, saltwater marshes, and aquatic habitat. Special construction methods and 

required. Portions of this network alternative are aligned in or along existing passenger rail linoperations on the existing passenger rail and automobile traffic service while constructing gradelevated sections, and stations would involve major construction issues/challenges. However, 

could be constructed incrementally to minimize impact to existing operations. 

O & M Cost (dollars per year) $1,098 million Operational Issues Average Speed 

SF–LA=168.8 mph (281.2 kph); Oakland–LA=176.3 mph (293.8 kph); SJ–LA=178.7 mph (297

mph (215.8 kph); Oakland–Sac=140.1 mph (233.5 kph); SJ–Sac=144.1 mph (240.2 kph); SF–kph); Oakland–Fresno=162.9_ mph (271.6 kph); SJ–Fresno=165 mph (275 kph); Livermore–L

kph); Tracy–LA=183.4 mph (305.7 kph); SF–Tracy=107.1 mph (178.5 kph); Oakland–Tracy=

SJ–Tracy=120.7 mph (201.2 kph) Maximum Speed SF–LA=210 mph (350 kph); Oakland–LA=210 mph (350 kph); SJ–LA=210 mph (350 kph); SFkph); Oakland–Sac=198 mph (330 kph); SJ–Sac=198 mph (330 kph); SF–Fresno=210 mph (3

Fresno=210 mph (350 kph); SJ–Fresno=210 mph (350 kph); Livermore–LA=210 mph (350 kp(350 kph); SF–Tracy=169.2 mph (282 kph); Oakland–Tracy=178.2 mph (297 kph); SJ–Tracy=

HST operations would need to be coordinated and integrated with Caltrain service on the SF Pin the I-580 corridor. Using the Altamont Pass would require the system to split in three diffe

Newark/Fremont to simultaneously serve San Jose, San Francisco, and Oakland in addition to 

Central Valley to serve both Sacramento and the Bay Area. This would mean that some trains Sacramento would go to San Francisco and some to Oakland, while others would go to San Jo

service types (express, semi-express, suburban express, regional, and local) and the compara(relative to international high-speed train services in operation) between the three potential Bcontribute to the significant inefficiency of serving all three of these stations. Based on foreca

third of the trains were directed to each terminus, which is equivalent to two-thirds of the trai

and Oakland, with one-third of the trains serving San Jose. 

9 Separate trains are required because the trainsets cannot be easily split to send some vehicles to each destination. Although some passenger train serv

the time required to physically separate a trainset into smaller units and prepare them for individual operation (e.g., ensuring separation of passengers, sadditional onboard personnel, switching power supply connections, completing system initiation checks after power switch, providing appropriate power vand the process would be highly undesirable for the passengers involved. In addition, the trainsets would be sealed for aerodynamic and passenger comconstraining the ability to physically split the trainsets, unless the trainsets were preconfigured in specific subsets prior to the start of service. Thus, it is a

trainsets would not be physically separated during the operational period. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

San Francisco, Oakla

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.2-3 

Altamont Pass: San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose Termini 

Potential Environmental Impacts Travel Conditions The Caltrain corridor Alignment would bring direct HST service up the San Francisco Peninsula 

downtown San Francisco with potential stations in downtown San Francisco, at SFO (Millbrae)

at Redwood City, to the East and South Bay with stations in Oakland, Oakland Airport (Coliseu(BART) and San Jose (Diridon), to the Tri-Valley with a station in Pleasanton (I-680/Bernal Ro

in Tracy, and Central Valley stations in Modesto and Merced. This network alternative would iaccessibility to San Francisco, the northern Peninsula and SFO, the hub international airport foOakland, the Oakland International Airport (Coliseum/BART), southern Alameda County, San Jand Tri-Valley area, and the Central Valley. This network alternative would provide a safer, m

efficient intercity mode along the northern portion of the San Francisco Peninsula while improv

and performance of the regional commuter service. The HST Network Alternative would greafor intercity and commuter travel and reduce existing automobile traffic. The fully grade-sepanorth of Redwood City, Niles/I-880 Alignment between Oakland and Union City, would improvreduce air pollution at existing rail crossings. There would also be some grade separation benI-580 corridor and UPRR N/S Alignment through the Central Valley. This network alternative wHST service to south Santa Clara County. 

Noise and Vibration:i High, 

medium, or low potential impacts 

Medium potential of noise impacts for the overall alternative, with a high potential of noise im

Corridor. Medium potential of vibration impacts for the overall alternative. High potential of viOakland to Niles Junction. Medium potential of vibration impacts, from San Francisco/Niles Jundowntown Tracy and a low potential in the Central Valley. 

Land Use and Planning, Communities and Neighborhoods, Property, and Environmental Justice 

Compatibility: Majority of network alternative is compatible (high rating), given that it is withiadjacent to an existing major rail or highway rights-of-way. It exhibits low compatibility wher

transportation right-of-way in the Altamont Pass area. It exhibits a medium to high compatibiSan Francisco Bay, in Fremont along the more narrow Centerville line, in the Shinn area. It hacompatibility in the Lathrop, Manteca, Modesto and Merced areas. Environmental Justice: This network alternative has medium environmental justice impact rat

Corridor (north of Redwood City) and the east bay alignment from Oakland to San Jose. It hajustice impact rating for the UPRR alignment from Niles Canyon to the Central Valley. Environrated as medium in the Central Valley except in the Manteca area, where the impact rating is 

Community: This network alternative would not affect community cohesion, given that the m

within or immediately adjacent to an existing major rail or highway rights-of-way. Property: This network alternative has the potential for high property impacts in the Niles Can

Manteca areas, where additional right-of-way would be required. 

Aesthetics and Visual Resources: General impacts and rating. 

Segments visual ratings: (1) Caltrain – San Francisco to Dumbarton =low; (2) Oakland to Nile

(3) Niles Junction to San Jose =medium; (4) UPRR =medium; (5) Tracy Downtown =low; (6) =medium; and (7) UPRR N/S =low. Overall network alternative rating is low to medium. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.2-3 

Altamont Pass: San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose Termini 

Farmlands:ii Ac (ha) potentially 

affected 

Farmland: 764.2 ac (309.28 ha) Impact up to 429.1 ac (173.65 ha) of prime farmland. The majority of potential farmland imp

the Tracy and the UPRR (North/South) segments. Overall, this network alternative along with San Jose Termini would have the greatest potential impact on farmland within the Altamont P

Cultural Resources and Paleontological Resources:iii

Potential presence of historical resources in area of potential effect 

There are 175 known cultural resources. This network alternative extends through numerous historic districts in San Francisco. Historic 

dating from the 1900s are within the area of potential effects along with water delivery systemfrom the 1890s, freeway bridges dating from the 1940s, and residential properties dating from Archaeological resources in the area of the Dumbarton crossing include prehistoric sites assochistoric sites from early 1900s industrial activities. Overall, this network alternative was identi

sensitivity for cultural resources. 

Hydrology and Water Resources:iv

Potential impacts and associated ac (ha) of floodplains and linear ft (m) of streams within potential impact study areas, ac (ha) lakes/other water bodies within study areas. 

Floodplains: 315.3 ac (127.62 ha) direct/ 983.7 ac (398.12 ha) indirect Streams: 19,814 linear ft (6,039.3 linear m) direct/ 82,951 linear ft (25,283.31 linear m) indirLakes/Waterbodies: 39.6 ac (16.03 ha) direct/ 154.9 ac (62.68 ha) indirect Of the Altamont Pass network alternatives, this network alternative along with four other netwidentified to have the highest area of impact on lakes and the San Francisco Bay due to the Dnetwork alternative was also identified as having the potential to encounter the most erosive sPotentially affect the San Francisco Bay, Guadalupe River, San Joaquin River, Stanislaus River, River, and Chowchilla River as well as the Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct, South Bay Aqueduct, and Camong other water resources. Includes tunnels that would avoid impacts on the floodplain anresources, and aerial structures that would minimize impact on floodplains and streams, creek

Biological Resources IncludingWetlands Ac (ha) of wetland, linear ft (m) of non-wetland waters, and number of special-status species within potential impact study areas 

Wetlandsv: 46.3 ac (18.73 ha) direct/ 2,594 ac (1,049.7 ha) indirect 

Non-Wetland Waters: 16,932 linear ft (5,160.9 linear m) Species: 57 special-status plant and 50 special-status wildlife species Of the Altamont Pass network alternatives, this network alternative would have the potential tspecial-status plant species, wetlands, and waters. Along with two other network alternatives to impact the most special-status wildlife species. This alternative could potentially result in imresources in San Francisco Bay as a result of the Dumbarton crossing. Potentially significant iplant and wildlife species, wetlands, and waters. Network alternative would be along existing transportation corridors with some portions in new 

Potentially result in a barrier to the movement of wildlife in areas where it severs wildlife movewith conservation and restoration plans and special management areas, such as the Don EdwaNational Wildlife Refuge. The placement of the alignment and stations and use of tunnels and minimize impacts on biological resources. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.2-3 

Altamont Pass: San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose Termini 

Fault Crossings San Bruno (Potentially Active) – At Grade Hayward (Active) – At Grade - Adjacent and Parallel 

Hayward (Active) – At Grade Silver Creek (Potentially Active) – Above Grade Calaveras (Active) – At Grade Calaveras (Active) – Tunnel Livermore (Potentially Active) – Above Grade Greenville (Active) – Above Grade Vernalis (Active) – At Grade Buried Trace of Unnamed Fault (Potentially Active) - At Grade Silver Creek (Potentially Active) - At Grade Hayward (Active) - Above Grade Mission (Potentially Active) - At Grade 

Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources:4Number of resources rated high potential direct effects 

There are 39 public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges that are 0–150 ft (4network alternative. Few potential direct impacts are anticipated given that much of the netw

or directly adjacent to existing transportation rights-of-way, and few resources exist in areas walternative is not adjacent to or within this existing right-of-way. Exceptions include the Augu
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

D. SAN JOSE TERMINUS This network alternative is shown in Figure 7.2-4 and described in Table 7.2-4. The segments used for this representaNiles/I-880 (Niles Junction to San Jose via I-880)10, East Bay Connection (Dumbarton/Niles XS), UPRR (Niles to Altamo

(UPRR Connection), and UPRR (Central Valley). 

Table 7.2-4 

Altamont Pass: San Jose Terminus 

Physical/Operational Characteristics Network Alternative Description From San Jose, this network alternative would use the Niles/I-880 Alignment between San Jos

Altamont Pass would use the UPRR Alignment through downtown Tracy, and the Central ValleN/S Alignment Station location options considered for this alternative are San Jose (Diridon), 

Springs), Pleasanton (I-680/Bernal Road), Tracy (Downtown), Modesto (Downtown), and Mer

Length 160.18 mi (257.78 km) Cost (dollars) $7.7 billion Express Travel Times (minutes) SJ-LA=2:19; SJ-Sac=0:49; SJ Fresno=1:01; Livermore-LA=2:06; Tracy-LA=1:59; SJ-Tracy=0:Ridership This network alternative would directly serve downtown San Jose, the I-880 and I-580 corrido

Valley. Although this network alternative does not directly serve Oakland or San Francisco, it 

and revenue because of the high frequency of service provided to San Jose. Total ridership astatewide HST system with this network alternative is forecast to be 94.6 million passengers aby 2030. Ridership for this network alternative is forecast to be about the 7.7% higher than tnetwork alternative and with revenue about 11.7% higher. 

Constructability Portions of this network alternative are aligned in or along existing passenger rail lines. Maint

existing passenger rail service while constructing grade separations, tunnels, elevated sections

involve major construction issues/challenges. However, the HST infrastructure could be constminimize impact to existing operations. 

O & M Cost (dollars per year) $1,076 million Operational Issues Average Speed 

SJ–LA=178.7 mph (297.9 kph); SJ–Sac=144.1 mph (240.2 kph); SJ–Fresno=165 mph (275 kp

mph (304.8 kph); Tracy–LA=183.4 mph (305.7 kph); SJ–Tracy=120.7 mph (201.2 kph) 

Maximum Speed SJ–LA=210 mph (350 kph); SJ–Sac=198 mph (330 kph); SJ–Fresno=210 mph (350 kph); Live

(350 kph); Tracy–LA=210 mph (350 kph); SJ–Tracy=180 mph (300 kph) HST operations would need to be coordinated and integrated with all transportation services a

10 Does not include Niles Junction to Niles Wye S (“Niles/I-880 5a”) segment. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.2-4 

Altamont Pass: San Jose Terminus 

operations would need to be coordinated and integrated with ACE service in the I-580 corrido

Potential Environmental Impacts Travel Conditions This network alternative would increase connectivity and accessibility to southern Alameda Co

Corridor and Tri-Valley area, and the Central Valley. The HST Network Alternative would prov

reliable, energy-efficient intercity mode along a portion of the I-880 corridor and the I-580 cor

San Jose (Diridon) Freeport (Warm Springs), Pleasanton (I-680/Bernal Road), downtown Trac

stations in Modesto and Merced. The HST Network Alternative would greatly increase the capcommuter travel to San Jose and reduce existing automobile traffic. The fully grade-separated 

corridor and UPRR N/S Alignment through the Central Valley would improve local traffic flow a

some existing rail crossings. This network alternative would not provide direct HST service to SF Peninsula/Caltrain Corridor, Oakland, Oakland Airport, and south Santa Clara County resultTravel Conditions benefits (travel times, reliability, safety, connectivity, sustainable capacity, aother network alternatives that directly serve additional stations/markets in the Bay Area. 

Noise and Vibration:i High, 

medium, or low potential impacts 

Medium potential of noise impacts for the overall alternative. Medium potential of vibration im

alternative. Medium potential of vibration impacts, from San Jose to downtown Tracy and a loValley. 

Land Use and Planning, Communities and Neighborhoods, Property, and Environmental Justice 

Compatibility: Majority of network alternative is compatible (high rating), given that it is withiadjacent to an existing major rail or highway rights-of-way. It exhibits a medium compatibility 

Manteca, Modesto and Merced areas. Environmental Justice: This network alternative has medium environmental justice impact ratNiles Junction to San Jose and low environmental justice impact rating for the UPRR alignmenthe Central Valley. Environmental justice impact is rated as medium in the Central Valley excewhere the impact rating is low. Community: This network alternative would not affect community cohesion, given that the m

within or immediately adjacent to an existing major rail or highway rights-of-way. Property: This network alternative has the potential for high property impacts in the Niles Canwhere additional right-of-way would be required. 

Aesthetics and Visual Resources: General impacts and rating. 

Segments visual ratings: (1) Niles Junction to San Jose =medium; (2) UPRR =medium; (3) Tr

and (4) UPRR N/S =low. Overall network alternative rating is low to medium. 

Farmlands:ii Ac (ha) potentially 

affected 

Farmland: 761.9 ac (308.33 ha) Impact up to 426.8 ac (172.71 ha) of prime farmland. The majority of potential farmland imp

the Tracy and the UPRR (North/South) segments. Overall, this network alternative would havfarmland within the Altamont Pass network alternatives. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.2-4 

Altamont Pass: San Jose Terminus 

Cultural Resources and Paleontological Resources:iii

Potential presence of historical resources in area of potential effect 

There are 93 known cultural resources. Historic properties and buildings dating from the 1920s are within the area of potential effects delivery systems and canals dating from the 1890s, freeway bridges dating from the 1940s, andating from the 1890s. Overall, this network alternative was identified as having a low sensitiresources. 

Hydrology and Water Resources:iv

Potential impacts and associated ac (ha) of floodplains and linear ft (m) of streams within potential impact study areas, ac (ha) lakes/other water bodies within study areas. 

Floodplains: 211.6 ac (85.62 ha) direct/ 706.1 ac (285.74 ha) indirect Streams: 14,670 linear ft (4,471.3 linear m) direct/ 65,274 linear ft (19,895.48 linear m) indirLakes/Waterbodies: 2.3 ac (0.93 ha) direct/ 7.6 ac (3.08 ha) indirect Of the Altamont Pass network alternatives, this network alternative along with four other netwidentified to have the least area of impact on lakes and would not result in impacts on San Franetwork alternative was also identified as having the potential to encounter the least amount Potentially affect Guadalupe River, San Joaquin River, Stanislaus River, Tuolumne River, Merce

River as well as the Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct, South Bay Aqueduct, and California Aqueduct amresources. Includes tunnels that would avoid impacts on the floodplain and above ground wastructures that would minimize impact on floodplains and streams, creeks, and channels. 

Biological Resources IncludingWetlands Ac (ha) of wetland, linear ft (m) of non-wetland waters, and number of special-status species within potential impact study areas 

Wetlandsv: 12.0 ac (4.84 ha) direct/ 737 ac (298.1 ha) indirect 

Non-Wetland Waters : 13,577 linear ft (4,138.2 linear m) 

Species: 39 special-status plant and 43 special-status wildlife species Potentially significant impacts to special-status plant and wildlife species, wetlands, and waterNetwork alternative would be along existing transportation corridors with some portions in new 

Potentially result in a barrier to the movement of wildlife in areas where it severs wildlife movewith conservation and restoration plans and special management areas. The placement of the and use of tunnels and aerial structures would minimize impacts on biological resources. 

Fault Crossings Hayward (Active) – At Grade Silver Creek (Potentially Active) – Above Grade 

Calaveras (Active) – Tunnel Livermore (Potentially Active) – Above Grade Greenville (Active) – Above Grade Vernalis (Active) – At Grade 

Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources:4Number of resources rated high potential direct effects 

There are 22 public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges that are 0–150 ft (4network alternative. Few potential direct impacts are anticipated given that much of the netw

or directly adjacent to existing transportation rights-of-way, and few resources exist in areas walternative is not adjacent to or within this existing right-of-way. Exceptions include the Augu
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

E. SAN FRANCISCO TERMINUS This network alternative is shown in Figure 7.2-5 and described in Table 7.2-5. The segments used for this representaCaltrain Corridor (SF to Dumbarton), Dumbarton (High Bridge)11, UPRR (Niles to Altamont), Tracy Downtown (UPRR Co

(Central Valley). 

Table 7.2-5 

Altamont Pass: San Francisco Terminus 

Physical/Operational Characteristics Network Alternative Description From San Francisco to Redwood City, this network alternative would use the existing Caltrain 

Redwood City and would cross the San Francisco Bay in the Dumbarton Corridor. The AltamoUPRR Alignment through downtown Tracy, and the Central Valley would use the UPRR N/S Alioptions considered for this alternative are Transbay Transit Center, Millbrae/SFO, Redwood Cit(I-680/Bernal Road), Tracy (Downtown), Modesto (Downtown), and Merced (Downtown). 

Length 191.55 mi (308.27 km) Cost (dollars) $11.0 billion Express Travel Times (minutes) SF-LA=2:36; SF-Sac=1:06; SF-Fresno=1:18; Livermore-LA=2:06; Tracy-LA=1:59; SF-Tracy=0Ridership This network alternative would directly serve downtown San Francisco and San Francisco Inte

Union City, the I-580 corridor, and the Central Valley. Although this network alternative does Oakland or San Jose, it provides high ridership and revenue because of the high frequency of Francisco. Total ridership and revenue for the statewide HST system with this network alterna93.9 million passengers and $3.13 billion per year by 2030. Ridership for this network alterna

about 6.8% higher than the Altamont “Base Case” network alternative and with revenue abou

Constructability Constructing a new bridge crossing along the Dumbarton corridor would involve major constru

sensitive wetlands, saltwater marshes, and aquatic habitat. Special construction methods and required. Portions of this network alternative are aligned in or along existing passenger rail lin

operations on the existing passenger rail service while constructing grade separations, tunnels

stations would involve major construction issues/challenges. However, the HST infrastructure 

incrementally to minimize impact to existing operations. 

O & M Cost (dollars per year) $1,124 million Operational Issues Average speed 

SF-LA=_168.8 mph (281.2 kph); SF-Sac=129.5 mph (215.8 kph); SF-Fresno=148 mph (246.7 

LA=182.9 mph (304.8 kph); Tracy-LA=183.4 mph (305.7 kph); SF-Tracy=107.1 mph (178.5 kMaximum speed 

11 Does not include “Dumbarton Wye South to Caltrain” segment. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.2-5 

Altamont Pass: San Francisco Terminus 

SF-LA=210 mph (350 kph); SF-Sac=198 mph (330 kph); SF-Fresno=210 mph (350 kph); Livekph); Tracy-LA=210 mph (350 kph); SF-Tracy=169.2 mph (282 kph) HST operations would need to be coordinated and integrated with Caltrain service on the SF Pin the I-580 corridor. 

Potential Environmental Impacts Travel Conditions The Caltrain corridor Alignment would bring direct HST service up the San Francisco Peninsula 

San Francisco with potential stations in downtown San Francisco, at SFO (Millbrae), a mid-Pen

Redwood City, a Tri-Valley in Pleasanton (I-680/Bernal Road) Station, a downtown station in T

stations in Modesto and Merced. This network alternative would increase connectivity and accFrancisco, the northern Peninsula and SFO, the hub international airport for northern CaliforniCounty, the I-580 Corridor and Tri-Valley area, and the Central Valley. The HST Network Altesafer, more reliable, energy-efficient intercity mode along the San Francisco Peninsula and in timproving the safety, reliability, and performance of the regional commuter service to San FraNetwork Alternative would greatly increase the capacity for intercity and commuter travel and 

automobile traffic. The fully grade-separated Caltrain corridor north of Redwood City would im

and reduce air pollution at existing rail crossings. There would also be some grade separation 

the I-580 corridor and UPRR N/S Alignment through the Central Valley. This network alternatdirect HST service to Oakland, Oakland Airport, San Jose, and south Santa Clara County resultTravel Conditions benefits (travel times, reliability, safety, connectivity, and passenger cost) th

alternatives that directly serve additional stations/markets in the Bay Area. 

Noise and Vibration:i High, 

medium, or low potential impacts 

Medium potential of noise impacts for the overall alternative, with a high potential of noise im

Corridor. Medium potential of vibration impacts for the overall alternative. Medium potential o

San Francisco to downtown Tracy and a low potential in the Central Valley. 

Land Use and Planning, Communities and Neighborhoods, Property, and Environmental Justice 

Compatibility: Majority of network alternative is compatible (high rating), given that it is withiadjacent to an existing major rail or highway rights-of-way. It exhibits low compatibility wher

transportation right-of-way in the Altamont Pass area. It exhibits a medium to high compatibiSan Francisco Bay, in Fremont along the more narrow Centerville line, in the Shinn area. It hacompatibility in the Lathrop, Manteca, Modesto and Merced areas. Environmental Justice: This network alternative has a low environmental justice impact rating from Niles Canyon to the Central Valley. Environmental justice impact is rated as medium in t

in the Manteca area, where the impact rating is low. Community: This network alternative would not affect community cohesion, given that the mwithin or immediately adjacent to an existing major rail or highway rights-of-way. Property: This network alternative has the potential for high property impacts in the Niles Can

Manteca areas, where additional right-of-way would be required. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.2-5 

Altamont Pass: San Francisco Terminus 

Aesthetics and Visual Resources: General impacts and rating. 

Segments visual ratings: (1) Caltrain – San Francisco to Dumbarton =low; (2) UPRR =mediu=low: (4) Dumbarton High Bridge =medium; (5) UPRR N/S =low. Overall network alternative 

Farmlands:ii Ac (ha) potentially 

affected 

Farmland: 757.8 ac (306.68 ha) Impact up to 422.7 ac (171.05 ha) of prime farmland. The majority of potential farmland imp

the Tracy and the UPRR (North/South) segments. Overall, this network alternative would havfarmland within the Altamont Pass network alternatives. 

Cultural Resources and Paleontological Resources:iii

Potential presence of historical resources in area of potential effect 

There are 146 known cultural resources. This network alternative extends through numerous historic districts in San Francisco. Historic 

dating from the 1900s are within the area of potential effects along with water delivery systemfrom the 1890s, freeway bridges dating from the 1940s, and residential properties dating from Archaeological resources in the area of the Dumbarton crossing include prehistoric sites assochistoric sites from early 1900s industrial activities. Overall, this network alternative was identimoderate sensitivity for cultural resources. 

Hydrology and Water Resources:iv

Potential impacts and associated ac (ha) of floodplains and linear ft (m) of streams within potential impact study areas, ac (ha) lakes/other water bodies within study areas. 

Floodplains: 270.7 ac (109.57 ha) direct/ 817.1 ac (330.68 ha) indirect Streams: 15,995 linear ft (4,875.1 linear m) direct/ 67,867 linear ft (20,685.76 linear m) indirLakes/Waterbodies: 39.6 ac (16.03 ha) direct/ 154.9 ac (62.68 ha) indirect Potentially affect the San Francisco Bay, San Joaquin River, Stanislaus River, Tuolumne River, 

Chowchilla River as well as the South Bay Aqueduct and California Aqueduct among other wattunnels that would avoid impacts on the floodplain and above ground water resources, and aeminimize impact on floodplains and streams, creeks, and channels. 

Biological Resources IncludingWetlands Ac (ha) of wetland, linear ft (m) of non-wetland waters, and number of special-status species within potential impact study areas 

Wetlandsv: 44.4 ac (17.97 ha) direct/ 2,259 ac (914.4 ha) indirect 

Non-Wetland Waters: 15,947 linear ft (4,860.6 linear m) Species: 56 special-status plant and 49 special-status wildlife species This alternative could potentially result in impacts on biological resources in San Francisco Bay Dumbarton crossing. Potentially significant impacts on special-status plant and wildlife specieNetwork alternative would be along existing transportation corridors with some portions in new 

Potentially result in a barrier to the movement of wildlife in areas where it severs wildlife movewith conservation and restoration plans and special management areas, such as the Don EdwaNational Wildlife Refuge. The placement of the alignment and stations and use of tunnels and minimize impacts on biological resources. 

Fault Crossings San Bruno (Potentially Active) – At Grade Calaveras (Active) – Tunnel 

Livermore (Potentially Active) – Above Grade Greenville (Active) – Above Grade 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.2-5 

Altamont Pass: San Francisco Terminus 

Vernalis (Active) – At Grade Buried Trace of Unnamed Fault (Potentially Active) - At Grade Silver Creek (Potentially Active) - At Grade Hayward (Active) - Above Grade Mission (Potentially Active) - At Grade 

Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources:4Number of resources rated high potential direct effects 

There are 24 public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges that are 0–150 ft (4network alternative. Few potential direct impacts are anticipated given that much of the netw

or directly adjacent to existing transportation rights-of-way, and few resources exist in areas walternative is not adjacent to or within this existing right-of-way. Exceptions include the Augu
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

F. OAKLAND TERMINUS This network alternative is shown in Figure 7.2-6 and described in Table 7.2-6. The segments used for this representaNiles/I-880 (West Oakland to Niles Junction), East Bay Connection (Dumbarton/Niles XN), UPRR (Niles to Altamont), T

Connection), and UPRR (Central Valley). 

Table 7.2-6 

Altamont Pass: Oakland Terminus 

Physical/Operational Characteristics Network Alternative Description From Oakland to Union City, this network alternative would use the Niles/I-800 Alignment nor

Pass would use the UPRR Alignment through downtown Tracy, and the Central Valley would u

Alignment. Station location options considered for this alternative are West Oakland/7th Stree

Union City (BART), Pleasanton (I-680/Bernal Road), Tracy (Downtown), Modesto (Downtown)(Downtown). 

Length 170.86 mi (274.97 km) Cost (dollars) $8.2 billion Express Travel Times (minutes) Oakland-LA=2:23; Oakland-Sac=0:53; Oakland-Fresno=1:04; Livermore-LA=2:06; Tracy-LA=

Tracy=0:29 

Ridership This network alternative would directly serve downtown Oakland and Oakland International Ai

the I-580 corridor, and the Central Valley. Although this network alternative does not directly Francisco, it provides high ridership and revenue because of the high frequency of service proridership and revenue for the statewide HST system with this network alternative is forecast to passengers and $3.15 billion per year by 2030. Ridership for this network alternative is forecahigher than the Altamont “Base Case” network alternative and revenue to be about 10.9% hig

Constructability Portions of this network alternative are aligned in or along existing passenger rail lines. Maint

existing passenger rail service while constructing grade separations, tunnels, elevated sections

involve major construction issues/challenges. However, the HST infrastructure could be constminimize impact to existing operations. 

O & M Cost (dollars per year) $1,093 million Operational Issues Average Speed 

Oakland–LA=176.3 mph (293.8 kph); Oakland–Sac=140.1 mph (233.5 kph); Oakland–Fresno=Livermore–LA=182.9 mph (304.8 kph); Tracy–LA=183.4 mph (305.7 kph); Oakland–Tracy=11

Maximum Speed Oakland–LA=210 mph (350 kph); Oakland–Sac=198 mph (330 kph); Oakland–Fresno=210 m

Livermore–LA=210 mph (350 kph); Tracy–LA=210 mph (350 kph); Oakland–Tracy=178.2 mp
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.2-6 

Altamont Pass: Oakland Terminus 

HST operations would need to be coordinated and integrated with ACE service in the I-580 co

Potential Environmental Impacts Travel Conditions The Niles/I-880 Alignment would bring direct HST service up the East Bay to Oakland, with sta

the Oakland international Airport (Coliseum/BART), the I-580 corridors with a station in Pleasa

Road), downtown Tracy, and Central Valley stations in Modesto and Merced, This network altconnectivity and accessibility to Oakland, the Oakland International Airport (Coliseum/BART), 

County, the I-580 Corridor and Tri-Valley area, and the Central Valley. The HST Network Alte

safer, more reliable, energy-efficient intercity mode, while improving the safety, reliability, and regional commuter service to Oakland. The HST Network Alternative would greatly increase t

and commuter travel and reduce existing automobile traffic. The fully grade-separated Niles/IOakland and Union City, UPRR in the I-580 corridor and UPRR N/S Alignment through the Cen

local traffic flow and reduce air pollution at existing rail crossings. This network alternative wo

HST service to San Francisco, SFO, the SF Peninsula/Caltrain Corridor, San Jose, and south Sa

resulting in considerably less Travel Conditions benefits (travel times, reliability, safety, conneccost) than other network alternatives that directly serve additional stations/markets in the Bay 

Noise and Vibration:i High, 

medium, or low potential impacts 

Medium potential of noise impacts for the overall alternative. Medium potential of vibration imalternative. High potential of vibration impacts from Oakland to Niles Junction. Medium potentfrom Niles Junction to downtown Tracy and a low potential in the Central Valley. 

Land Use and Planning, Communities and Neighborhoods, Property, and Environmental Justice 

Compatibility: Majority of network alternative is compatible (high rating), given that it is withiadjacent to an existing major rail or highway rights-of-way. It exhibits low compatibility wher

transportation right-of-way in the Altamont Pass area. It has a medium compatibility in the Laand Merced areas. Environmental Justice: This network alternative has medium environmental justice impact ratbetween Niles Junction and Oakland and a low environmental justice impact rating for the UPRCanyon to the Central Valley. Environmental justice impact is rated as medium in the Central 

Manteca area, where the impact rating is low. Community: This network alternative would not affect community cohesion, given that the m

within or immediately adjacent to an existing major rail or highway rights-of-way. Property: This network alternative has the potential for high property impacts in the Niles Canwhere additional right-of-way would be required. 

Aesthetics and Visual Resources: General impacts and rating. 

Segments visual ratings: (1) Oakland to Niles Junction =low; (2) UPRR =medium; (3) Tracy D

UPRR N/S =low. Overall network alternative rating is low to medium 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.2-6 

Altamont Pass: Oakland Terminus 

Farmlands:ii Ac (ha) potentially 

affected 

Farmland: 755.5 ac (305.73 ha) Impact up to 420.3 ac (170.11 ha) of prime farmland. The majority of potential farmland imp

the Tracy and the UPRR (North/South) segments. Overall, this network alternative along with 

and Oakland, and San Francisco via transbay tube network alternatives would have the Least 

farmland within the Altamont Pass network alternatives. 

Cultural Resources and Paleontological Resources:iii

Potential presence of historical resources in area of potential effect 

There are 112 known cultural resources. Historic properties and industrial complexes dating from the 1920s and 1940s are within the aalong with water delivery systems and canals dating from the 1890s, freeway bridges dating fresidential properties dating from the 1880s. Overall, this network alternative was identified afor cultural resources. 

Hydrology and Water Resources:iv

Potential impacts and associated ac (ha) of floodplains and linear ft (m) of streams within potential impact study areas, ac (ha) lakes/other water bodies within study areas. 

Floodplains: 181.1 ac (73.29 ha) direct/ 568.2 ac (229.94 ha) indirect Streams: 16,831 linear ft (5,130.0 linear m) direct/ 73,451 linear ft (22,387.96 linear m) indirLakes/Waterbodies: 2.3 ac (0.93 ha) direct/ 7.6 ac (3.08 ha) indirect Of the Altamont Pass network alternatives, this network alternative along with four other netwidentified to have the least area of impact on lakes and would not result in impacts on San FraPotentially affect San Joaquin River, Stanislaus River, Tuolumne River, Merced River, and Chowthe South Bay Aqueduct and California Aqueduct among other water resources. Includes tunnimpacts on the floodplain and above ground water resources, and aerial structures that would floodplains and streams, creeks, and channels. 

Biological Resources IncludingWetlands Ac (ha) of wetland, linear ft (m) of non-wetland waters, and number of special-status species within potential impact study areas 

Wetlandsv: 10.8 ac (4.35 ha) direct/ 539 ac (217.9 ha) indirect 

Non-Wetland Waters: 13,502 linear ft (4,115.5 linear m) Species: 39 special-status plant and 44 special-status wildlife species Of the Altamont Pass network alternatives, this network alternative along with one other netwidentified to have the least area of impact on wetlands and would not result in impacts on San Potentially significant impacts to special-status plant and wildlife species and wetlands and waNetwork alternative would be along existing transportation corridors with some portions in new 

Potentially result in a barrier to the movement of wildlife in areas where it severs wildlife movewith conservation and restoration plans and special management areas. The placement of the and use of tunnels and aerial structures would minimize impacts on biological resources. 

Fault Crossings Hayward (Active) – At Grade - Adjacent and Parallel Calaveras (Active) – Tunnel 

Livermore (Potentially Active) – Above Grade Greenville (Active) – Above Grade Vernalis (Active) – At Grade 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.2-6 

Altamont Pass: Oakland Terminus 

Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources:4

Number of resources rated high potential direct effects 

There are 21 public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges that are 0–150 ft (4network alternative. Few potential direct impacts are anticipated given that much of the netw

or directly adjacent to existing transportation rights-of-way, and few resources exist in areas walternative is not adjacent to or within this existing right-of-way. Exceptions include the Augu
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

G. UNION CITY TERMINUS This network alternative is shown in Figure 7.2-7 and described in Table 7.2-7. The segments used for this representaNiles/I-880 (Union City BART to Niles Junction), East Bay Connection (Dumbarton/Niles XN), UPRR (Niles to Altamont)

(UPRR Connection), and UPRR (Central Valley). 

Table 7.2-7 

Altamont Pass: Union City Terminus 

Physical/Operational Characteristics Network Alternative Description From Union City, the Altamont Pass Alignment would follow the UPRR through downtown Trac

would use the UPRR N/S Alignment. Station location options considered for this alternative arPleasanton (I-680/Bernal Road), Tracy (Downtown), Modesto (Downtown), and Merced (Down

Length 157.93 mi (254.16 km) Cost (dollars) $6.0 billion Express Travel Times (minutes) Union–LA=2:13; Union–Sac=0:43; Union–Fresno=0:55; Livermore–LA=2:06; Tracy–LA=1:59; Ridership This network alternative would serve Union City and connect to BART and the I-580 corridor a

ridership and revenue potential than network alternatives that provide direct service to additio

Area. Total ridership and revenue for the statewide HST system with this network alternative million passengers and $2.70 billion per year by 2030. Ridership and revenue for this network 

be about 5% less than the Altamont “Base Case” network alternative. 

Constructability Portions of this network alternative are aligned in or along existing passenger rail lines. Maint

existing passenger rail service while constructing grade separations, tunnels, elevated sections

involve major construction issues/challenges. However, the HST infrastructure could be constminimize impact to existing operations. 

O & M Cost (dollars per year) $1,073 million Operational Issues Average Speed 

Union-LA=180.2 mph (300.3 kph); Union-Sac=143.8 mph (239.6 kph); Union-Fresno=167 mp

Livermore-LA=182.9 mph (304.8 kph); Tracy-LA=183.4 mph (305.7 kph); Union-Tracy=106.8 Maximum Speed Union-LA=210 mph (350 kph); Union-Sac=198 mph (330 kph); Union-Fresno=210 mph (350 mph (350 kph); Tracy-LA=210 mph (350 kph); Union-Tracy=169.2 mph (282 kph) 

HST operations would need to be coordinated and integrated with all transportation services a

operations would need to be coordinated and integrated with ACE service in the I-580 corrido
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.2-7 

Altamont Pass: Union City Terminus 

Potential Environmental Impacts Travel Conditions This network alternative would bring direct HST service to the East Bay, Tri-Valley, and Centra

East Bay Station in Union City (BART), a Tri-Valley in Pleasanton (I/680/Bernal Road), a down

and Central Valley stations in Modesto and Merced. This network alternative would increase caccessibility to southern Alameda County, the I-580 Corridor and Tri-Valley area, and the Cent

Network alternative would provide a safer, more reliable, energy-efficient intercity mode along while improving the safety, reliability, and performance of the regional commuter service. The Alternative would increase the capacity for intercity and commuter travel and reduce existing a

fully grade-separated UPRR in the I-580 corridor and UPRR N/S Alignment through the Centra

local traffic flow and reduce air pollution at some existing rail crossings. This network alternatdirect HST service to San Francisco, SFO, the SF Peninsula/Caltrain Corridor, Oakland, Oakland 

south Santa Clara County resulting in considerably less Travel Conditions benefits (travel timesconnectivity, and passenger cost) than other network alternatives that directly serve additionaBay Area. 

Noise and Vibration:i High, 

medium, or low potential impacts 

Medium potential of noise impacts for the overall alternative. Medium potential of vibration im

alternative. High potential of vibration impacts from Union City to Niles Junction. Medium pote

impacts, from Niles Junction to downtown Tracy and a low potential in the Central Valley. 

Land Use and Planning, Communities and Neighborhoods, Property, and Environmental Justice 

Compatibility: Majority of network alternative is compatible (high rating), given that it is withiadjacent to an existing major rail or highway rights-of-way. It exhibits low compatibility wher

transportation right-of-way in the Altamont Pass area. It has a medium compatibility in the LaModesto and Merced areas. Environmental Justice: This network alternative has a low environmental justice impact rating from Niles Canyon to the Central Valley. Environmental justice impact is rated as medium in tin the Manteca area, where the impact rating is low. Community: This network alternative would not affect community cohesion, given that the m

within or immediately adjacent to an existing major rail or highway rights-of-way. Property: This network alternative has the potential for high property impacts in the Niles Canwhere additional right-of-way would be required. 

Aesthetics and Visual Resources: General impacts and rating 

Segments visual ratings: (1) UPRR =medium; (2) Tracy Downtown =low; and (3) UPRR N/S =alternative rating is low to medium. 

Farmlands:ii Ac (ha) potentially 

affected 

Farmland: 755.5 ac (305.73 ha) Impact up to 420.3 ac (170.11 ha) of prime farmland. The majority of potential farmland imp

the Tracy and the UPRR (North/South) segments. Overall, this network alternative along with 

and Oakland, and San Francisco via transbay tube network alternatives would have the Least farmland within the Altamont Pass network alternatives. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.2-7 

Altamont Pass: Union City Terminus 

Cultural Resources and Paleontological Resources:iii

Potential presence of historical resources in area of potential effect 

There are 88 known cultural resources. Of the Altamont Pass network alternatives, this network alternative was identified to have the resources. Historic properties and industrial complexes dating from the 1920s and 1940s are within the aalong with water delivery systems and canals dating from the 1890s, freeway bridges dating fresidential properties dating from the 1880s. Overall, this network alternative was identified afor cultural resources. 

Hydrology and Water Resources:iv

Potential impacts and associated ac (ha) of floodplains and linear ft (m) of streams within potential impact study areas, ac (ha) lakes/other water bodies within study areas. 

Floodplains: 177.6 ac (71.88 ha) direct/ 561.4 ac (227.20 ha) indirect Streams: 14,432 linear ft (4,398.9 linear m) direct/ 65,198 linear ft (19,872.48 linear m) indirLakes/Waterbodies: 2.3 ac (0.93 ha) direct/ 7.6 ac (3.08 ha) indirect Of the Altamont Pass network alternatives, this network alternative was identified to have the on water resources including streams and rivers as well as lakes, floodplains, groundwater, anPotentially affect San Joaquin River, Stanislaus River, Tuolumne River, Merced River, and Chowthe South Bay Aqueduct and California Aqueduct among other water resources. Includes tunnimpacts on the floodplain and above ground water resources, and aerial structures that would floodplains and streams, creeks, and channels. 

Biological Resources IncludingWetlands Ac (ha) of wetland, linear ft (m) of non-wetland waters, and number of special-status species within potential impact study areas 

Wetlandsv: 10.7 ac (4.31 ha) direct/ 499 ac (202.0 ha) indirect 

Non-Wetland Waters: 13,113 linear ft (3,996.7 linear m) Species: 38 special-status plant and 36 special-status wildlife species Of the Altamont Pass network alternatives, this network alternative would have the potential tspecial-status plant and wildlife species, wetlands, and waters. This network alternative would San Francisco Bay. Potentially significant impacts to special-status plant and wildlife species aNetwork alternative would be along existing transportation corridors with some portions in new 

Potentially result in a barrier to the movement of wildlife in areas where it severs wildlife movewith conservation and restoration plans and special management areas. The placement of the and use of tunnels and aerial structures would minimize impacts on biological resources. 

Fault Crossings Calaveras (Active) – Tunnel Livermore (Potentially Active) – Above Grade 

Greenville (Active) – Above Grade Vernalis (Active) – At Grade 

Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources:4Number of resources rated high potential direct effects 

There are 18 public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges that are 0–150 ft (4network alternative. Few potential direct impacts are anticipated given that much of the netw

or directly adjacent to existing transportation rights-of-way, and few resources exist in areas walternative is not adjacent to or within this existing right-of-way. Exceptions include the Augu
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

H. SAN FRANCISCO AND SAN JOSE – VIA SF PENINSULA This network alternative is shown in Figure 7.2-8 and described in Table 7.2-8. The segments used for this representaCaltrain Corridor (SF to Dumbarton), Caltrain (Dumbarton to San Jose), Dumbarton (High Bridge), UPRR (Niles to Altam(UPRR Connection), and UPRR (Central Valley). 

Table 7.2-8 

Altamont Pass: San Francisco and San Jose – via San Francisco Peninsula 

Physical/Operational Characteristics Network Alternative Description This network alternative would cross the San Francisco Bay in the Dumbarton corridor. From 

Jose, this network alternative would use the existing Caltrain Alignment The Altamont Pass AlUPRR through downtown Tracy, and the Central Valley would use the UPRR N/S Alignment. S

considered for this alternative are Transbay Transit Center, Millbrae/SFO, Palo Alto (Caltrain), Jose (Diridon), Pleasanton (I-680/Bernal Road), Tracy (Downtown), Modesto (Downtown), an

Length 213.30 mi (343.27 km) Cost (dollars) $12.6 billion Express Travel Times (minutes) SF–LA=2:36; SJ–LA=2:37; SF–Sac=1:06; SJ–Sac=1:03; SF–Fresno=1:18; SJ–Fresno=1:15; L

Tracy–LA=1:59; SF–Tracy=0:42; SJ–Tracy=0:39 

Ridership This network alternative would directly serve downtown San Francisco and San Francisco Inte

San Jose, the I-580 corridor, and the Central Valley resulting in high ridership and revenue. Trevenue for the statewide HST system with this network alternative is forecast to be 90.8 millibillion per year by 2030. Ridership for this network alternative is forecast to be 3.2% more th

Case” network alternative, and revenue is forecast to be 3.6% less than the base case networ

Constructability Constructing a new bridge crossing along the Dumbarton corridor would involve major constru

sensitive wetlands, saltwater marshes, and aquatic habitat. Special construction methods and required. Portions of this network alternative are aligned in or along existing passenger rail linoperations on the existing passenger rail service while constructing grade separations, tunnelsstations would involve major construction issues/challenges. However, the HST infrastructure 

incrementally to minimize impact to existing operations. 

O & M Cost (dollars per year) $1,115 million 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

San Francisco and San J

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.2-8 

Altamont Pass: San Francisco and San Jose – via San Francisco Peninsula 

Operational Issues Average Speed 

SF–LA=168.8 mph (281.2 kph); SJ–LA=171.2 mph (285.4 kph); SF–Sac=129.5 mph (215.8 kp

(240.8 kph); SF–Fresno=148.0 mph (246.7 kph); SJ–Fresno=161.4 mph (269 kph); Livermorekph); SJ–Tracy=129.7 mph (216.1 kph); SF–Tracy=107.1 (178.5 kph) Maximum Speed SF–LA=210 mph (350 kph); SJ–LA=210 mph (350 kph); SF–Sac=198 mph 330 kph); SJ–Sac=

SF–Fresno=210 mph (350 kph); SJ–Fresno=210 mph (350 kph); Livermore–LA=210 mph (35

mph (285_ kph); SF–Tracy=169.2 mph (282 kph); Tracy–LA=210 mph (350 kph) This network alternative would require the system to split in two separate directions to serve bFrancisco given a constant number of trains. This decreases the frequency of service from sostations by a factor of two as compared to network alternatives using the Pacheco Pass alignmforecasted travel demand, two-thirds of the trains were directed to San Francisco and one-thirdirected to San Jose. HST operations would need to be coordinated and integrated with Caltrain service on the SF Pin the I-580 corridor. 

Potential Environmental Impacts Travel Conditions The Caltrain corridor Alignment would bring direct HST service up the San Francisco Peninsula 

Francisco with potential stations in downtown San Francisco, at SFO (Millbrae), a mid-Peninsu

station in San Jose (Diridon). It would serve the East Bay with a station in Union City (Shinn)station in Pleasanton (I-680/Bernal Road), a downtown Tracy station, and Central Valley Statio

Merced. This network alternative would increase connectivity and accessibility to San Francisc

SFO, the hub international airport for northern California, southern Alameda County, San Jose

Tri-Valley area, and the Central Valley. The HST Network Alternative would provide a safer, m

efficient intercity mode along the San Francisco Peninsula, the I-580 Corridor and the Central 

the safety, reliability, and performance of the regional commuter service. The HST Network A

increase the capacity for intercity and commuter travel and reduce existing automobile traffic. 

separated Caltrain corridor would improve local traffic flow and reduce air pollution at existing 

would also be grade separation benefits in the UPRR in the I-580 corridor and UPRR N/S AlignCentral Valley. This network alternative would not provide direct HST service to Oakland, Oak

Santa Clara County. 

Noise and Vibration:i High, 

medium, or low potential impacts 

Medium potential of noise impacts for the overall alternative, with a high potential of noise im

Corridor. Medium potential of vibration impacts for the overall alternative. Medium potential o

San Francisco to Dumbarton and High potential of impacts from Dumbarton to San Jose. Medifrom San Jose to downtown Tracy and a low potential in the Central Valley. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.2-8 

Altamont Pass: San Francisco and San Jose – via San Francisco Peninsula 

Land Use and Planning, Communities and Neighborhoods, Property, and Environmental Justice 

Compatibility: Majority of network alternative is compatible (high rating), given that it is withiadjacent to an existing major rail or highway rights-of-way. It exhibits low compatibility whertransportation right-of-way in the Altamont Pass area. It exhibits a medium to high compatibiSan Francisco Bay, in Fremont along the more narrow Centerville line, in the Shinn area. It hacompatibility in the Lathrop, Manteca, Modesto and Merced areas. Environmental Justice: This network alternative has medium environmental justice impact rat

Corridor and a low environmental justice impact rating for the UPRR alignment from Niles CanEnvironmental justice impact is rated as medium in the Central Valley except in the Manteca arating is low. Community: This network alternative would not affect community cohesion, given that the mwithin or immediately adjacent to an existing major rail or highway rights-of-way. Property: This network alternative has the potential for high property impacts in the Niles CanManteca areas, where additional right-of-way would be required. 

Aesthetics and Visual Resources: General impacts and rating 

Segments visual ratings: (1) Caltrain – San Francisco to Dumbarton =low; (2) Caltrain – Dumb(3) UPRR =medium; (4) Tracy Downtown =low; (4) Dumbarton High Bridge =medium, and (5

Overall network alternative rating is low to medium. 

Farmlands:ii Ac (ha) potentially 

affected 

Farmland: 757.8 ac (306.68 ha) Impact up to 422.7 ac (171.05 ha) of prime farmland. The majority of potential farmland imp

the Tracy and the UPRR (North/South) segments. Overall, this network alternative would havfarmland within the Altamont Pass network alternatives. 

Cultural Resources and Paleontological Resources:iii

Potential presence of historical resources in area of potential effect 

There are 182 known cultural resources. This network alternative extends through numerous historic districts in San Francisco. Historic 

dating from the 1900s are within the area of potential effects along with railroad facilities, watcanals dating from the 1890s, freeway bridges dating from the 1940s, and residential properti1880s. The Santa Clara de Asis Mission in San Jose includes both prehistoric and historic resoresources in the area of the Dumbarton crossing include prehistoric sites associated with buria

early 1900s industrial activities. Overall, this network alternative was identified as having a hig

resources 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.2-8 

Altamont Pass: San Francisco and San Jose – via San Francisco Peninsula 

Hydrology and Water Resources:iv

Potential impacts and associated ac (ha) of floodplains and linear ft (m) of streams within potential impact study areas, ac (ha) lakes/other water bodies within study areas 

Floodplains: 317.3 ac (128.40 ha) direct/ 891.3 ac (360.69 ha) indirect Streams: 17,481 linear ft (5,328.2 linear m) direct/ 70,714 linear ft (21,553.71 linear m) indirLakes/Waterbodies: 39.6 ac (16.03 ha) direct/ 154.9 ac (62.68 ha) indirect Of the Altamont Pass network alternatives, this network alternative along with four other netwidentified to have the highest area of impact on lakes and the San Francisco Bay due to the Dnetwork alternative was also identified as having the potential to impact the most area of flooPotentially affect San Francisco Bay, San Joaquin River, Stanislaus River, Tuolumne River, MerChowchilla River as well as the Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct, South Bay Aqueduct, and California Awater resources. Includes tunnels that would avoid impacts on the floodplain and above grouaerial structures that would minimize impact on floodplains and streams, creeks, and channels

Biological Resources IncludingWetlands Ac (ha) of wetland, linear ft (m) of non-wetland waters, and number of special-status species within potential impact study areas 

Wetlandsv: 44.4 ac (17.97 ha) direct/ 2,264 ac (916.1 ha) indirect 

Non-Wetland Waters: 15,947 linear ft (4,860.6 linear m) Species: 56 special-status plant and 49 special-status wildlife species This alternative could potentially result in impacts on biological resources in San Francisco Bay Dumbarton crossing. Potentially significant impacts on special-status plant and wildlife specie

Network alternative would be along existing transportation corridors with some portions in new 

Potentially result in a barrier to the movement of wildlife in areas where it severs wildlife movewith conservation and restoration plans and special management areas, such as the Don EdwaNational Wildlife Refuge. The placement of the alignment and stations and use of tunnels and 

minimize impacts on biological resources. 

Fault Crossings San Bruno (Potentially Active) – At Grade Buried Trace of Unnamed Fault (Potentially Active) – At Grade 

Calaveras (Active) – Tunnel Livermore (Potentially Active) – Above Grade Greenville (Active) – Above Grade Vernalis (Active) – At Grade Buried Trace of Unnamed Fault (Potentially Active) - At Grade Silver Creek (Potentially Active) - At Grade Hayward (Active) - Above Grade Mission (Potentially Active) - At Grade 

Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources:4Number of resources rated high potential direct effects 

There are 30 public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges that are 0–150 ft (4network alternative. Few potential direct impacts are anticipated given that much of the netw

or directly adjacent to existing transportation rights-of-way, and few resources exist in areas walternative is not adjacent to or within this existing right-of-way. Exceptions include the Augu
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

I. SAN FRANCISCO, SAN JOSE, AND OAKLAND – WITH NO SF BAY CROSSING 

This network alternative is shown in Figure 7.2-9 and described in Table 7.2-9. The segments used for this representaCaltrain Corridor (SF to Dumbarton), Caltrain (Dumbarton to San Jose), Niles/I-880 (West Oakland to Niles Junction), NJunction to San Jose via I-880)12, East Bay Connectors (Dumbarton/Niles XN & Dumbarton/Niles XS), UPRR (Niles to A

Downtown (UPRR Connection), and UPRR (Central Valley). 

Table 7.2-9 

Altamont Pass: San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland – with No San Francisco Bay Crossing 

Physical/Operational Characteristics Network Alternative Description This Network alternative would not cross the San Francisco Bay. From San Francisco to San J

alternative would use the existing Caltrain right-of-way and the Niles/I-880 Alignment south o

The Altamont Pass Alignment would follow the UPRR through downtown Tracy, and the CentrUPRR N/S Alignment. Station location options considered for this alternative are Transbay Tra

Millbrae/SFO, Redwood City (Caltrain), West Oakland/7th Street, Coliseum/Airport, Union City (

(Diridon), Pleasanton (I-680/Bernal Road), Tracy (Downtown), Modesto (Downtown), and Mer

Length 244.70 mi (393.81 km) Cost (dollars) $14.5 billion Express Travel Times (minutes) SF–LA=3:17; Oakland–LA=2:23; SJ–LA=2:19; SF–Sac=1:39; Oakland–Sac=0:53; SJ–Sac=0:4

Oakland–Fresno=1:04; SJ–Fresno=1:01; Livermore–LA=2:06; Tracy–LA=1:59; SF–Tracy=1:3SJ–Tracy=0:25 

Ridership This network alternative would directly serve downtown San Francisco and San Francisco Inte

the I-880 Corridor in the East Bay, San Jose, the I-580 corridor and the Central Valley. Riders

statewide HST system with this network alternative is forecast at 85.2 million passengers and 

2030. Ridership for this network alternative is forecast to be about 3% less than the Altamon

alternative, with revenue about 4% less. 

Constructability Portions of this network alternative are aligned in or along existing passenger rail lines. Maint

existing commuter rail service while constructing grade separations, tunnels, elevated sections

involve major construction issues/challenges. However, the HST infrastructure could be constminimize impact to existing operations. 

O & M Cost (dollars per year) $1,123 million Operational Issues Average Speed 

SF–LA=140.2 mph (233.6 kph); Oakland–LA=176.3 mph (293.8 kph); SJ–LA=178.7 mph (297

mph (169.7 kph); Oakland–Sac=140.1 mph (233.5 kph); SJ–Sac=144.1 mph (240.2 kph); SF–

(187.9 kph); Oakland–Fresno=162.9 mph (271.6 kph); SJ–Fresno=165 mph (275 kph); Liverm

12 Does not include Niles Junction to Niles Wye S (“Niles/I-880 5A”) segment. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

San Francisco, San Jose, and Oaklan

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.2-9 

Altamont Pass: San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland – with No San Francisco Bay Crossing 

(304.8 kph); Tracy–LA=183.4 mph (305.7 kph); SF–Tracy=63 mph (105 kph); Oakland–Tracy120.7 mph (201.2 kph) Maximum Speed SF–LA=210 mph (350 kph); Oakland–LA=210 mph (350 kph); SJ–LA=210 mph (350 kph); SFkph); Oakland–Sac=198 mph (330 kph); SJ–Sac=198 mph (330 kph); SF–Fresno=210 mph (3

Fresno=210 mph (350 kph); SJ–Fresno=210 mph (350 kph); Livermore–LA=210 mph (350 kp(350 kph); SF–Tracy=178.2 mph (297kph); Oakland–Tracy=178.2 mph (297 kph); SJ–Tracy=This network alternative would require the system to split in two separate directions to serve bOakland given a constant number of trains. This decreases the frequency of service from soustations by a factor of two as compared to network alternatives using the Pacheco Pass alignmaddition, travel times to San Francisco are significantly longer than Altamont options using the Not only do trains travel to San Francisco via San Jose, but the train must be turned in San Jo

north to San Francisco. The turn will take a minimum of 20 minutes. HST operations would need to be coordinated and integrated with Caltrain service in the SF Pein the I-580 corridor. 

Potential Environmental Impacts Travel Conditions The Caltrain corridor Alignment would bring direct HST service up the San Francisco Peninsula 

San Francisco with potential stations in downtown San Francisco, at SFO (Millbrae), and a mid

Redwood City. The Alternative would serve Oakland, Oakland Airport, Downtown San Jose (D

Valley with a station in Pleasanton (I-680/Bernal Road), Downtown Tracey, and Central Valley Merced. This network alternative would increase connectivity and accessibility to San Francisc

SFO, the hub international airport for northern California, Oakland, the Oakland International A

southern Alameda County, San Jose, the I-580 Corridor and Tri-Valley area, and the Central VAlternative would provide a safer, more reliable, energy-efficient intercity mode along the San East Bay, and the Tri Valley while improving the safety, reliability, and performance of the reg

The HST Network Alternative would greatly increase the capacity for intercity and commuter t

automobile traffic. The fully grade-separated Caltrain corridor, Niles/I-880 Alignment between would improve local traffic flow and reduce air pollution at existing rail crossings. There would 

separation benefits is the UPRR in the I-580 corridor and UPRR N/S Alignment through the Ce

network alternative does not provide direct service to south Santa Clara County. 

Noise and Vibration:i High, 

medium, or low potential impacts 

Medium potential of noise impacts for the overall alternative, with a high potential of noise im

Corridor. Medium potential of vibration impacts for the overall alternative. High potential of viOakland to Niles Junction. Medium potential of vibration impacts, from San Francisco/Niles Jundowntown Tracy and a low potential in the Central Valley. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.2-9 

Altamont Pass: San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland – with No San Francisco Bay Crossing 

Land Use and Planning, Communities and Neighborhoods, Property, and Environmental Justice 

Compatibility: Majority of network alternative is compatible (high rating), given that it is withiadjacent to an existing major rail or highway rights-of-way. It exhibits medium compatibility iModesto and Merced areas. Environmental Justice: This network alternative has medium environmental justice impact rat

Corridor (north of Redwood City) and the east bay from Oakland to San Jose and a low envirorating for the UPRR alignment from Niles Canyon to the Central Valley. Environmental justice 

medium in the Central Valley except in the Manteca area, where the impact rating is low. Community: This network alternative would not affect community cohesion, given that the mwithin or immediately adjacent to an existing major rail or highway rights-of-way. Property: This network alternative has the potential for high property impacts in the Niles Canwhere additional right-of-way would be required. 

Aesthetics and Visual Resources: General impacts and rating. 

Segments visual ratings: (1) Caltrain – San Francisco to Dumbarton =low; (2) Caltrain – Dum(3) Oakland to Niles Junction =low; (4) Niles Junction to San Jose =medium; (5) UPRR =med=low; (7) UPRR N/S =low. The overall network alternative rating is low to medium. 

Farmlands:ii Ac (ha) potentially 

affected 

Farmland: 761.9 ac (308.33 ha) Impact up to 426.8 ac (172.71 ha) of prime farmland. The majority of potential farmland imp

the Tracy and the UPRR (North/South) segments. Overall, this network alternative would havfarmland within the Altamont Pass network alternatives. 

Cultural Resources and Paleontological Resources:iii

Potential presence of historical resources in area of potential effect 

There are 205 known cultural resources. Of the Altamont Pass network alternatives, this network alternative was identified to have the known resources. This network alternative extends through numerous historic districts in San Francisco. Historic 

dating from the 1900s are within the area of potential effects along with industrial complexes and 1940s, water delivery systems and canals dating from the 1890s, railroad facilities, freewathe 1940s, and residential properties dating from the 1880s. The Santa Clara de Asis Mission 

prehistoric and historic resources. Overall, this network alternative was identified as having a cultural resources. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.2-9 

Altamont Pass: San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland – with No San Francisco Bay Crossing 

Hydrology and Water Resources:iv

Potential impacts and associated ac (ha) of floodplains and linear ft (m) of streams within potential impact study areas, ac (ha) lakes/other water bodies within study areas. 

Floodplains: 314.5 ac (127.27 ha) direct/ 895.8 ac (362.55 ha) indirect Streams: 20,273 linear ft (6,179.2 linear m) direct/ 82,171 linear ft (25,045.66 linear m) indirLakes/Waterbodies: 2.3 ac (0.93 ha) direct/ 11.0 ac (4.45 ha) indirect Of the Altamont Pass network alternatives, this network alternative was identified to have the impact on waters including streams, rivers, and canals. This network alternative would not af

Bay. This network alternative was also identified as having the potential to impact the most imPotentially affect Guadalupe River, San Joaquin River, Stanislaus River, Tuolumne River, MerceRiver as well as the Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct, South Bay Aqueduct, and California Aqueduct amresources. Includes tunnels that would avoid impacts on the floodplain and above ground wastructures that would minimize impact on floodplains and streams, creeks, and channels. 

Biological Resources IncludingWetlands Ac (ha) of wetland, linear ft (m) of non-wetland waters, and number of special-status species within potential impact study areas 

Wetlandsv: 12.4 ac (5.01 ha) direct/ 957 ac (387.2 ha) indirect 

Non-Wetland Waters: 14,622 linear ft (4,115.5 linear m) Species: 56 special-status plant and 50 special-status wildlife species Of the Altamont Pass network alternatives, this network alternative along with two other netwhave the potential to impact the most special-status wildlife species. Potentially significant im

plant and wildlife species, wetlands, and waters. Network alternative would be along existing transportation corridors with some portions in new 

Potentially result in a barrier to the movement of wildlife in areas where it severs wildlife movewith conservation and restoration plans and special management areas. The placement of the and use of tunnels and aerial structures would minimize impacts on biological resources. 

Fault Crossings San Bruno (Potentially Active) – At Grade Buried Trace of Unnamed Fault (Potentially Active) – At Grade 

Hayward (Active) – At Grade - Adjacent and Parallel Hayward (Active) – At Grade Silver Creek (Potentially Active) – Above Grade Calaveras (Active) – Tunnel Livermore (Potentially Active) – Above Grade Greenville (Active) – Above Grade Vernalis (Active) – At Grade 

Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources:4Number of resources rated high potential direct effects 

There are 39 public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges that are 0–150 ft (4network alternative. Few potential direct impacts are anticipated given that much of the netw

or directly adjacent to existing transportation rights-of-way, and few resources exist in areas walternative is not adjacent to or within this existing right-of-way. Exceptions include the Augu
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

J. OAKLAND AND SAN FRANCISCO – VIA TRANSBAY TUBE 

This network alternative is shown in Figure 7.2-10 and described in Table 7.2-10. The segments used for this represeTrans Bay Crossing – Transbay Transit Center, Niles/I-880 (West Oakland to Niles Junction), East Bay Connector (Dum

(Niles to Altamont), Tracy UP Connection (Tracy Downtown), and UPRR (Central Valley). 

Table 7.2-10 

Altamont Pass: Oakland and San Francisco – via Transbay Tube 

Physical/Operational Characteristics Network Alternative Description From San Francisco to Oakland, this network alternative would use a new transbay tube betw

Oakland and would use the Niles/I-880 Alignment north of Shinn. The Altamont Pass Alignme

UPRR through downtown Tracy, and the Central Valley would use the UPRR N/S Alignment. S

considered for this alternative are Transbay Transit Center, West Oakland/7t Street, Coliseum/

(BART), Pleasanton (I-680/Bernal Road), Tracy (Downtown), Modesto (Downtown), and Merce

Length 179.64 mi (289.11 km) Cost (dollars) $12.9 billion Express Travel Times (minutes) SF-LA=2:28; Oakland-LA=2:23; SF-Sac=0:58; Oakland-Sac=0.53; SF-Fresno=1:09; Oakland-F

LA=2:31; Tracy-LA=1:59; SF-Tracy=0:33; Oakland-Tracy=0:29 

Ridership This network alternative would directly serve downtown San Francisco and downtown Oakland

Central Valley with a single HST line (no split in frequencies) resulting in high ridership and revand revenue for the statewide HST system with this network alternative is forecast to be 95.9 

$3.16 billion per year by 2030. Ridership for this network alternative is forecast to be about 9% 

Altamont “Base Case” network alternative, with revenue about 11% more. 

Constructability Constructing a new transbay tube between Oakland and San Francisco would involve major co

the San Francisco Bay. Special construction methods and mitigations would be required. Portalternative are aligned in or along existing passenger rail lines. Maintaining operations on the service while constructing grade separations, tunnels, elevated sections, and stations would in

issues/challenges. However, the HST infrastructure could be constructed incrementally to minoperations. 

O & M Cost (dollars per year) $1,106 million Operational Issues Average speed 

SF-LA=169.6 mph (282.6 kph); Oakland-LA=176.3 mph (293.8 kph); SF-Sac=137.3 mph (228Sac=140.1 mph (233.5 kph); SF-Fresno=156.9 mph (261.5 kph); Oakland-Fresno=162.9 mph 

LA=182.9 mph (304.8 kph); Tracy-LA=183.4 mph (305.7 kph); SF-Tracy=114.5 mph (190.9 k

Tracy=116.6 mph (194.3 kph) Maximum speed SF-LA=210 mph (350 kph); Oakland-LA=210 mph (350 kph); SF-Sac=198 m

Sac=198 mph (330 kph); SF-Fresno=210 mph (350 kph); Oakland-Fresno=210 mph (350 kph
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Oakland and San Francisc

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.2-10 

Altamont Pass: Oakland and San Francisco – via Transbay Tube 

mph (350 kph); Tracy-LA=210 mph (350 kph); SF-Tracy=178.2 mph (297 kph); Oakland-Trac

HST operations would need to be coordinated and integrated with ACE service in the I-580 co

Potential Environmental Impacts Travel Conditions This network alternative would bring direct HST service to San Francisco and Oakland with sta

Transit Center and West Oakland, to the East Bay with a station at the Oakland International A

and Union City (BART), with a Tri Valley station in Pleasanton (I-680/Bernal Road), a downtow

Central Valley stations in Modesto and Merced. This network alternative would increase conneto San Francisco, Oakland, the Oakland International Airport (Coliseum/BART), southern Alam

Corridor and Tri-Valley area, and the Central Valley. The HST Network Alternative would prov

reliable, energy-efficient intercity mode along the I-880 and I-580 corridors while improving thperformance of the regional commuter service. The HST Network Alternative would greatly in

intercity and commuter travel and reduce existing automobile traffic. The fully grade-separatebetween Oakland and Union City would improve local traffic flow and reduce air pollution at ex

There would also be some grade separation benefits in the UPRR in the I-580 corridor and UPthrough the Central Valley. This network alternative would not provide direct HST service to S

Peninsula/Caltrain Corridor, San Jose, and southern Santa Clara County. 

Noise and Vibration:i High, 

medium, or low potential impacts 

Medium potential of noise impacts for the overall alternative, with a high potential of noise im

Corridor. Medium potential of vibration impacts for the overall alternative. High potential of viOakland to Niles Junction. Medium potential of vibration impacts, from San Francisco/Niles Jun

Tracy and a low potential in the Central Valley. 

Land Use and Planning, Communities and Neighborhoods, Property, and Environmental Justice 

Compatibility: Majority of network alternative is compatible (high rating), given that it is withiadjacent to an existing major rail or highway rights-of-way. It exhibits low compatibility wher

transportation right-of-way in the Altamont Pass. It has a medium compatibility in the Lathrop

Merced areas. Environmental Justice: This network alternative has medium environmental justice impact rat

between Niles Junction and Oakland and a low environmental justice impact rating for the UPRCanyon to the Central Valley. Environmental justice impact is rated as medium in the Central 

Manteca area, where the impact rating is low. Community: This network alternative would not affect community cohesion, given that the m

within or immediately adjacent to an existing major rail or highway rights-of-way. Property: This network alternative has the potential for high property impacts in the Niles Canwhere additional right-of-way would be required. 

Aesthetics and Visual Resources: General impacts and rating. 

Segments visual ratings: (1) Oakland to Niles Junction =low; (2) UPRR =medium; (3) Tracy DTrans Bay Crossing =none; and (5) UPRR N/S =low. Overall network alternative rating is low 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.2-10 

Altamont Pass: Oakland and San Francisco – via Transbay Tube 

Farmlands:ii Ac (ha) potentially 

affected 

Farmland: 755.5 ac (305.73 ha) Impact up to 420.3 ac (170.11 ha) of prime farmland. The majority of potential farmland imp

the Tracy and the UPRR (North/South) segments. Overall, this network alternative along with 

and Union City Terminus network alternatives would have the Least Potential Impact to farmlaPass network alternatives. 

Cultural Resources and Paleontological Resources:iii

Potential presence of historical resources in area of potential effect 

There are 114 known cultural resources. Historic properties and industrial complexes dating from the 1920s and 1940s are within the aalong with water delivery systems and canals dating from the 1890s, freeway bridges dating fresidential properties dating from the 1880s. The area around the Trans Bay crossing likely incfrom the Gold Rush period through the 1906 earthquake. Overall, this network alternative walow sensitivity for cultural resources. 

Hydrology and Water Resources:iv

Potential impacts and associated ac (ha) of floodplains and linear ft (m) of streams within potential impact study areas, ac (ha) lakes/other water bodies within study areas. 

Floodplains: 181.1 ac (73.29 ha) direct/ 568.2 ac (229.94 ha) indirect Streams: 16,831 linear ft (5,130.0 linear m) direct/ 73,451 linear ft (22,387.96 linear m) indirLakes/Waterbodies: 38.8 ac (15.70 ha) direct/ 243.1 ac (98.38 ha) indirect Potentially affect San Francisco Bay, San Joaquin River, Stanislaus River, Tuolumne River, MerChowchilla River as well as the South Bay Aqueduct and California Aqueduct among other wattunnels that would avoid impacts on the floodplain and above ground water resources, and aeminimize impact on floodplains and streams, creeks, and channels. 

Biological Resources IncludingWetlands Ac (ha) of wetland, linear ft (m) of non-wetland waters, and number of special-status species within potential impact study areas 

Wetlandsv: 33.6 ac (13.59 ha) direct/ 1,892 ac (765.8 ha) indirect 

Non-Wetland Waters: 13,502 linear ft (4,115.5 linear m) Species: 40 special-status plant and 43 special-status wildlife species Of the Altamont Pass network alternatives, this network alternative along with the San Jose, OFrancisco – via transbay tube network alternative was identified to have a high impact on wetTrans Bay crossing. This alternative could also potentially result in significant impacts special-species and Bay waters. Network alternative would be along existing transportation corridors with some portions in new 

Potentially result in a barrier to the movement of wildlife in areas where it severs wildlife movewith conservation and restoration plans and special management areas. The placement of the and use of tunnels and aerial structures would minimize impacts on biological resources. 

Fault Crossings Hayward (Active) – At Grade - Adjacent and Parallel Calaveras (Active) – Tunnel 

Livermore (Potentially Active) – Above Grade Greenville (Active) – Above Grade Vernalis (Active) – At Grade 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.2-10 

Altamont Pass: Oakland and San Francisco – via Transbay Tube 

Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources:4Number of resources rated high potential direct effects 

There are 22 public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges that are 0–150 ft (4network alternative. Few potential direct impacts are anticipated given that much of the netw

or directly adjacent to existing transportation rights-of-way, and few resources exist in areas walternative is not adjacent to or within this existing right-of-way. Exceptions include the Augu
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

K. SAN JOSE, OAKLAND, AND SAN FRANCISCO – VIA TRANSBAY TUBE This network alternative is shown in Figure 7.2-11 and described in Table 7.2-11. The segments used for this represeTrans Bay Crossing – Transbay Transit Center, Niles/I-880 (West Oakland to Niles Junction), Niles/I-880 (Niles Junctio880)13, UPRR (Niles to Altamont), East Bay Connections (Dumbarton/Niles XN & Dumbarton/Niles XS), Tracy Downtow

and UPRR (Central Valley). 

Table 7.2-11 

Altamont Pass: San Jose, Oakland, and San Francisco – via Transbay Tube 

Physical/Operational Characteristics Network Alternative Description From San Francisco to Oakland this network alternative would use a new transbay tube. The 

would be used between Oakland and San Jose, with the UPRR Alignment through the Tri-ValleUPRR N/S Alignment through the Central Valley. Station location options considered for this a

Transit Center, West Oakland/7th Street, Coliseum/Airport, Union City (BART), San Jose (Dirido

680/Bernal Road), Tracy (Downtown), Modesto (Downtown), and Merced (Downtown). 

Length 199.11 mi (320.44 km) Cost (dollars) $14.8 billion Express Travel Times (minutes) SF–LA=2:31; Oakland–LA=2:23; SJ–LA=2:19; SF–Sac=0:58; Oakland–Sac=0:53; SJ–Sac=0:4

Fresno=1:01; Livermore–LA=2:06; Tracy–LA=1:59; SF–Tracy=0:33; Oakland–Tracy=0:29; SJ

Ridership This network alternative would directly serve downtown San Francisco and Oakland, San Jose

the Central Valley and would have high ridership and revenue. Total ridership and revenue fo

system with this network alternative is forecast to be 89.6 million passengers and $2.88 billion 

Ridership for this network alternative is forecast to be nearly 2% more than the Altamont “Basalternative, with revenue about 1.4% higher. 

Constructability Constructing a transbay tube between Oakland and San Francisco would involve major constru

San Francisco Bay. Special construction methods and mitigations would be required. Portionalternative are aligned in or along existing passenger rail lines. Maintaining operations on the service while constructing grade separations, tunnels, elevated sections, and stations would inissues/challenges. However, the HST infrastructure could be constructed incrementally to minoperations. 

O & M Cost (dollars per year) $1,093 million Operational Issues Average Speed 

SF–LA=169.6 mph (282.6 kph); Oakland–LA=176.3 mph (293.8 kph); SJ–LA=178.7 mph (297

mph (228.8 kph); Oakland–Sac=140.1 mph (233.5 kph); SJ–Sac=144.1 mph (240.2 kph); SF–

(261.5 kph); Oakland–Fresno=162.9 mph (271.6 kph); SJ–Fresno=165 mph (275 kph); Liverm

13 Does not include Niles Junction to Niles Wye S (“Niles/I-880 5A”) segment. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

San Jose, Oakland, and San Francis

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.2-11 

Altamont Pass: San Jose, Oakland, and San Francisco – via Transbay Tube 

(304.8 kph); Tracy–LA=183.4 mph (305.7 kph); SF–Tracy=114.5_ mph (190.9 kph); Oakland–kph); SJ–Tracy=120.7 mph (201.2 kph) Maximum Speed SF–LA=210 mph 350 kph); Oakland–LA=210 mph (350 kph); SJ–LA=210 mph (350 kph); SF–kph); Oakland–Sac=198 mph (330 kph); SJ–Sac=198 mph (330 kph); SF–Fresno=210_ mph 

Fresno=210 mph (350 kph); SJ–Fresno=210 mph (350 kph); Livermore–LA=210 mph (350 kp(350 kph); SF–Tracy=178.2 mph (297 kph); Oakland–Tracy=178.2 mph (297 kph); SJ–Tracy=

This network alternative would require the system to split in two separate directions to serve bFrancisco given a constant number of trains. This decreases the frequency of service from sostations by a factor of two as compared to network alternatives using the Pacheco Pass alignmforecasted travel demand, two-thirds of the trains were directed to San Francisco and one-thirdirected to San Jose. HST operations would need to be coordinated and integrated with ACE 

corridor. 

Potential Environmental Impacts Travel Conditions This network alternative would directly serve downtown San Francisco and Oakland with statio

Transit Center and West Oakland, Union City with a station at Union City (BART), San Jose wit

I-580 corridor with stations in Pleasanton (I-680/Bernal Road), a downtown Tracy Station, and 

in Modesto and Merced. This network alternative would increase connectivity and accessibility 

Oakland, the Oakland International Airport (Coliseum/BART), southern Alameda County, San Jand Tri-Valley area, and the Central Valley. The HST Network Alternative would provide a safefficient intercity mode along the I-880 and I-580 corridors and in the Central Valley, while im

reliability, and performance of the regional commuter service. The HST Network Alternative wcapacity for intercity and commuter travel and reduce existing automobile traffic. The fully gr

880 Alignment between Oakland and Union City would improve local traffic flow and reduce aicrossings. There would also be some grade separation benefits in the UPRR in the I-580 corri

Alignment through the Central Valley. This network alternative would not provide direct HST s

SF Peninsula area, and south Santa Clara County. 

Noise and Vibration:i High, 

medium, or low potential impacts 

Medium potential of noise impacts for the overall alternative, with a high potential of noise im

Corridor. Medium potential of vibration impacts for the overall alternative. High potential of viOakland to Niles Junction. Medium potential of vibration impacts, from San Francisco/Niles Jundowntown Tracy and a low potential in the Central Valley. 

Land Use and Planning, Communities and Neighborhoods, Property, and Environmental Justice 

Compatibility: Majority of network alternative is compatible (high rating), given that it is withiadjacent to an existing major rail or highway rights-of-way. It exhibits low compatibility wher

transportation right-of-way in the Altamont Pass. It has a medium compatibility in the Lathrop

Merced areas. Environmental Justice: This network alternative has medium environmental justice impact rat

between Oakland and San Jose and a low environmental justice impact rating for the UPRR al
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.2-11 

Altamont Pass: San Jose, Oakland, and San Francisco – via Transbay Tube 

Canyon to the Central Valley. Environmental justice impact is rated as medium in the Central 

Manteca area, where the impact rating is low. Community: This network alternative would not affect community cohesion, given that the mwithin or immediately adjacent to an existing major rail or highway rights-of-way. Property: This network alternative has the potential for high property impacts in the Niles Canwhere additional right-of-way would be required. 

Aesthetics and Visual Resources: General impacts and rating. 

Segments visual ratings: (1) Oakland to Niles Junction =low; (2) Niles Junction to San Jose ==medium; (4) Tracy Downtown =low, (5) Trans Bay Crossing =none, and (6) UPRR N/S =low

alternative rating is low to medium. 

Farmlands:ii Ac (ha) potentially 

affected 

Farmland: 761.9 ac (308.33 ha) Impact up to 426.8 ac (172.71 ha) of prime farmland. The majority of potential farmland imp

the Tracy and the UPRR (North/South) segments. Overall, this network alternative would havfarmland within the Altamont Pass network alternatives. 

Cultural Resources and Paleontological Resources:iii

Potential presence of historical resources in area of potential effect 

There are 119 known cultural resources. Historic properties and industrial complexes dating from the 1920s and 1940s are within the aalong with water delivery systems and canals dating from the 1890s, freeway bridges dating fresidential properties dating from the 1880s. The area around the Trans Bay crossing likely infrom the Gold Rush period through the 1906 earthquake. Overall, this network alternative wamoderate sensitivity for cultural resources. 

Hydrology and Water Resources:iv

Potential impacts and associated ac (ha) of floodplains and linear ft (m) of streams within potential impact study areas, ac (ha) lakes/other water bodies within study areas. 

Floodplains: 218.6 ac (88.48 ha) direct/ 720.4 ac (291.56 ha) indirect Streams: 17,660 linear ft (5,382.7 linear m) direct/ 76,905 linear ft (23,440.49 linear m) indirLakes/Waterbodies: 38.8 ac (15.70 ha) direct/ 243.1 ac (98.38 ha) indirect Potentially affect San Francisco Bay, Guadalupe River, San Joaquin River, Stanislaus River, TuoRiver, and Chowchilla River as well as the Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct, South Bay Aqueduct, and Camong other water resources. Includes tunnels that would avoid impacts on the floodplain anresources, and aerial structures that would minimize impact on floodplains and streams, creek
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.2-11 

Altamont Pass: San Jose, Oakland, and San Francisco – via Transbay Tube 

Biological Resources IncludingWetlands Ac (ha) of wetland, linear ft (m) of non-wetland waters, and number of special-status species within potential impact study areas 

Wetlandsv: 35.1 ac (14.21 ha) direct/ 2,158 ac (873.5 ha) indirect 

Non-Wetland Waters: 14,032 linear ft (4,227.0 linear m) Species: 42 special-status plant and 43 special-status wildlife species This alternative could potentially result in significant impacts on biological resources in San Frathe Trans Bay crossing, including wetlands, special-status plant and wildlife species, and Bay wNetwork alternative would be along existing transportation corridors with some portions in new 

Potentially result in a barrier to the movement of wildlife in areas where it severs wildlife movewith conservation and restoration plans and special management areas. The placement of the and use of tunnels and aerial structures would minimize impacts on biological resources. 

Fault Crossings Hayward (Active) – At Grade - Adjacent and Parallel Hayward (Active) – At Grade 

Silver Creek (Potentially Active) – Above Grade Calaveras (Active) – Tunnel Livermore (Potentially Active) – Above Grade Greenville (Active) – Above Grade Vernalis (Active) – At Grade 

Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources:4Number of resources rated high potential direct effects 

There are 30 public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges that are 0–150 ft (4network alternative. Few potential direct impacts are anticipated given that much of the netw

or directly adjacent to existing transportation rights-of-way, and few resources exist in areas walternative is not adjacent to or within this existing right-of-way. Exceptions include the Augu
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

7.2.2 Pacheco Pass Alternatives 

A. SAN FRANCISCO AND SAN JOSE TERMINI This network alternative is shown in Figure 7.2-12 and described in Table 7.2-12. The segments used for this represe

Caltrain Corridor (SF to Dumbarton), Caltrain (Dumbarton to San Jose), Pacheco (San Jose to Western Valley), Henry MBNSF/UPRR), Henry Miller UPRR Connection, BNSF-UPRR. 

Table 7.2-12 

Pacheco Pass: San Francisco and San Jose Termini (Base Case for Pacheco) 

Physical/Operational Characteristics Network Alternative Description From San Francisco to San Jose, this network alternative would use the existing Caltrain rail ri

Pacheco and Henry Miller (to the UPRR) Alternatives would be used between San Jose and the 

BNSF N/S (north of Merced) and UPRR N/S (south of Merced) Alignments would be used in thlocation options considered for this alternative are Transbay Transit Center, Millbrae/SFO, Red

(Diridon), Gilroy (Caltrain), Merced (Downtown), and Briggsmore (Amtrak). 

Length 267.53 mi (430.55 km) Cost (dollars) $12.4 billion Express Travel Times (minutes) SF–LA=2:38; SJ–LA=2:09; SF–Sac=1:47; SJ–Sac=1:18; SF–Fresno=1:20; SJ–Fresno=0:51; G

Gilroy=0:44; SJ–Gilroy=0:15 

Ridership This network alternative would directly serve downtown San Francisco and San Francisco Inte

San Jose, southern Santa Clara County, and the Central Valley and would have high ridership Total ridership and revenue for the statewide HST system with this network alternative is forepassengers and $3.1 billion per year by 2030. 

Constructability Portions of this network alternative are aligned in or along existing passenger rail lines. Maint

existing passenger rail service while constructing grade separations, tunnels, elevated sections

involve major construction issues/challenges. However, the HST infrastructure could be constminimize impact to existing operations. 

O & M Cost (dollars per year) $1,182 million Operational Issues Average Speed 

SF–LA=164.2 mph (273.6 kph); SJ–LA=179.5 mph (299.2 kph); SF–Sac=152.8 mph (254.7 kp

(290 kph); SF–Fresno=139.5 mph (232.5 kph); SJ–Fresno=164.3 mph (273.8 kph); Gilroy–LA

kph); SF–Gilroy=102.3 mph (170.6 kph); SJ–Gilroy=114.6 mph (191 kph) Maximum Speed SF–LA=210 mph (350 kph); SJ–LA=210 mph (350 kph); SF–Sac=210 mph (350 kph); SJ–SacSF–Fresno=210 mph (350 kph); SJ–Fresno=210 mph (350 kph); Gilroy–LA=210 mph (350 kp(300 kph); SJ–Gilroy=180 mph (300 kph) 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

San Francis

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.2-12 

Pacheco Pass: San Francisco and San Jose Termini (Base Case for Pacheco) 

HST operations would need to be coordinated and integrated with Caltrain service. 

Potential Environmental Impacts Travel Conditions The Caltrain corridor Alignment would bring direct HST service up the San Francisco Peninsula 

Francisco with potential stations in downtown San Francisco, at SFO (Millbrae), and a mid-Pen

Redwood City. The network alternative would serve Southern Santa Clara County with a Stati

Central Valley, with station in Merced and Briggsmore. This network alternative would increase 

accessibility to San Francisco, the Peninsula and SFO, the hub international airport for norther

Southern Santa Clara County and the Monterey/Santa Cruz/Salinas area, and the Central Vallewould be the closest HST station for Monterey, Santa Cruz, and San Benito counties. The HST would provide a safer, more reliable, energy-efficient intercity mode along the San Francisco Pthe safety, reliability, and performance of the regional commuter service. The HST Network A

increase the capacity for intercity and commuter travel and reduce existing automobile traffic. 

separated Caltrain corridor north of Gilroy would improve local traffic flow and reduce air pollucrossings. There would also be some grade separation benefits in the BNSF N/S (north of Me

(south of Merced) in the Central Valley. This network alternative would not provide direct HST 

Oakland Airport, the East Bay, south Alameda County, and the I-580 corridor. 

Noise and Vibration:i High, 

medium, or low potential impacts 

Medium potential of noise impacts for the overall alternative. All segments have a medium pot

with the expectation of Henry Miller and Henry Miller UPRR Connection, which have a low poteMedium potential of vibration impacts for the overall alternative. Medium potential of vibration Francisco to Dumbarton. High potential of vibration impacts from Dumbarton to San Jose. Mevibration impacts, from San Jose to Gilroy and a low potential in the Central Valley. 

Land Use and Planning, Communities and Neighborhoods, Property, and Environmental Justice 

Compatibility: Majority of network alternative is compatible (high rating), given that it is withiadjacent to an existing major rail or highway rights-of-way for most of the alignment. It exhib

where it connects to the UPRR N/S or BNSF N/S in the Chowchilla area and a medium compatN/S Alignment in the Central Valley. Environmental Justice: This network alternative has medium environmental justice impact rat

Corridor between San Francisco and Gilroy and a low impact rating from Gilroy to the Central alignment has a medium impact rating except for low impact ratings in the Briggsmore and ChCommunity: This network alternative would not affect community cohesion, given that the m

within or immediately adjacent to an existing major rail or highway rights-of-way. Property: This network alternative has the potential for low property impacts as the alignmentransportation right-of-way or through rural land. This network alternative 

Aesthetics and Visual Resources: General impacts and rating. 

Segments visual ratings: (1) Caltrain – San Francisco to Dumbarton =low; (2) Caltrain – Dum(3) Pacheco =medium; (4) Henry Miller to UPRR =low, and (5) BNSF N/S =low. Overall netwlow to medium. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.2-12 

Pacheco Pass: San Francisco and San Jose Termini (Base Case for Pacheco) 

Farmlands:ii Ac (ha) potentially 

affected 

Farmland: 1,372.3 ac (555.36ha) Impact up to 663.3 ac (268.45 ha) of prime farmland. The majority of potential farmland imp

the Pacheco, Henry Miller, BNSF (North/South), and UPRR (North/South) segments. Overall, t

along with the San Jose Terminus and San Jose, San Francisco, and Oakland via transbay tube 

Potential Impacts (LPI) to farmland within the Pacheco Pass network alternatives. 

Cultural Resources and Paleontological Resources:iii

Potential presence of historical resources in area of potential effect 

There are 167 known cultural resources. This network alternative extends through numerous historic districts in San Francisco. Historic 

dating from the 1900s are within the area of potential effects along with water delivery systemfrom the 1890s, a sanitary sewer system from 1912, railroad facilities, freeway bridges dating residential properties dating from the 1880s. The Santa Clara de Asis Mission in San Jose incl

historic resources. Overall, this network alternative was identified as having a moderate sensi

resources. 

Hydrology and Water Resources:iv

Potential impacts and associated ac (ha) of floodplains and linear ft (m) of streams within potential impact study areas, ac (ha) lakes/other water bodies within study areas. 

Floodplains: 520.8 ac (210.76 ha) direct/ 1633.2 ac (660.96 ha) indirect Streams: 20,276 linear ft (6,180.1 linear m) direct/ 90,572 linear ft (27,606.42 linear m) indirLakes/Waterbodies: 3.8 ac (1.55 ha) direct/ 19.7 ac (7.97 ha) indirect Of the Pacheco Pass network alternatives, this network alternative along with one other netwoidentified to have the least amount of impact on lakes and would not impact San Francisco BaPotentially affect Guadalupe River, Pajaro River, San Joaquin River, Stanislaus River, Tuolumnand Chowchilla River as well as the Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct and California Aqueduct among otSeveral watercourses would be crossed more than once. Includes tunnels that would avoid imand above ground water resources, and aerial structures that would minimize impact on flood

creeks, and channels. 

Biological Resources IncludingWetlands Ac (ha) of wetland, linear ft (m) of non-wetland waters, and number of special-status species within potential impact study areas 

Wetlandsv: 15.6 ac (6.30 ha) direct/ 1,601 ac (648.1 ha) indirect 

Non-Wetland Waters: 14,395 linear ft (4,387.5 linear m) Species: 58 special-status plant and 53 special-status wildlife species Of the Pacheco Pass network alternatives, this network alternative along with two other netwohave the potential to impact the most special-status wildlife species, but the least area of impaPotentially significant impacts to special-status plant and wildlife species, wetlands, and waterNetwork alternative would be along existing transportation corridors with some portions in new 

Potentially result in a barrier to the movement of wildlife in areas where it severs wildlife movewith conservation and restoration plans and special management areas, such as the GEA. The alignment and stations and use of tunnels and aerial structures would minimize impacts on bio
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.2-12 

Pacheco Pass: San Francisco and San Jose Termini (Base Case for Pacheco) 

Fault Crossings San Bruno (Potentially Active) – At Grade Buried Trace of Unnamed Fault (Potentially Active) – At Grade 

Silver Creek (Potentially Active) – At Grade Calaveras (Active) – At Grade Ortigalita (Active) – At Grade 

Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources:4Number of resources rated high potential direct effects 

There are 18 public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges that are 0–150 ft (4network alternative. Few potential direct impacts are anticipated given that much of the netw

or directly adjacent to existing transportation rights-of-way, and few resources exist in areas walternative is not adjacent to or within this existing right-of-way. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

B. OAKLAND AND SAN JOSE TERMINI This network alternative is shown in Figure 7.2-13 and described in Table 7.2-13. The segments used for this represeNiles/I-880 (West Oakland to Niles Junction), Niles/I-880 (Niles Junction to San Jose via I-880), Pacheco (San Jose to 

Miller (Western Valley to BNSF/UPRR), Henry Miller UPRR Connection, BNSF - UPRR. 

Table 7.2-13 

Pacheco Pass: Oakland and San Jose Termini 

Physical/Operational Characteristics Network Alternative Description From Oakland to San Jose, this network alternative would use the Niles/I-880 Alignment. The 

(to the UPRR) Alternatives would be used between San Jose and the Central Valley. The BNSF 

and UPRR N/S (south of Merced) Alignments would be used in the Central Valley. Station locat

this alternative are West Oakland/7th Street, Coliseum/Airport, Union City (BART), San Jose (Di

Merced (Downtown), and Briggsmore (Amtrak). 

Length 256.87 mi (413.40 km) Cost (dollars) $11.6 billion Express Travel Times (minutes) Oakland-LA=2:30; SJ-LA=2:09; Oakland-Sac=1:38; SJ-Sac=1:18; Oakland-Fresno=1:12; SJ-Fr

LA=1:57; Oakland-Gilroy=0:36; SJ-Gilroy=0:15 

Ridership This network alternative would directly serve downtown Oakland and Oakland International Air

Coliseum/BART Station) San Jose, southern Santa Clara County, and the Central Valley and wo

and revenue potential. Total ridership is forecast to be about 2% less than the Pacheco “Base low end forecasts, this would result in about 91.7 million passengers a year by 2030. Revenue 

system with this network alternative is $3.08 billion per year by 2030. 

Constructability Portions of this network alternative are aligned in or along existing passenger rail lines and high

Maintaining operations on the existing commuter rail service and automobile traffic while consttunnels, elevated sections, and stations would involve major construction issues/challenges. Hinfrastructure could be constructed incrementally to minimize impact to existing operations. 

O & M Cost (dollars per year) $1,166 million Operational Issues Average Speed 

Oakland–LA=170.7 mph (284.6 kph); SJ–LA=179.5 mph (299.2 kph); Oakland–Sac=163.5 mph 

Sac=174 mph (290 kph); Oakland–Fresno=150.5 mph (250.8kph); SJ–Fresno=164.3 mph (273

mph (305.4 kph); Oakland–Gilroy=116 mph (193.3 kph); SJ–Gilroy=114.6 mph (191 kph) 

Maximum Speed Oakland–LA=210 mph (350 kph); SJ–LA=210 mph (350 kph); Oakland–Sac=210 mph (350 kph

(350 kph); Oakland–Fresno=210 mph (350 kph); SJ–Fresno=210 mph (350 kph); Gilroy–LA=2

Oakland–Gilroy=180 mph (300 kph); SJ–Gilroy=180 mph (300 kph) HST operations would need to be coordinated and integrated with Caltrain service between San 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Oakla

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.2-13 

Pacheco Pass: Oakland and San Jose Termini 

Potential Environmental Impacts Travel Conditions The Niles/I-880 corridor Alignment would bring direct HST service up the Oakland, the East Ba

stations in West Oakland, at the Oakland International Airport (Coliseum/BART), Union City (BStation in San Jose. The network alternative would serve southern Santa Clara County at Gilrowith stations in Merced and Briggsmore. This network alternative would increase connectivity 

Oakland, the Oakland International Airport (Coliseum/BART), southern Alameda County, San J

County and Monterey/ Santa Cruz/ Salinas area, and the Central Valley. The Gilroy station wo

station for Monterey, Santa Cruz, and San Benito counties. The HST Network Alternative woureliable, energy-efficient intercity mode along the East Bay while improving the safety, reliabili

the regional commuter service. The HST Network Alternative would greatly increase the capacommuter travel and reduce existing automobile traffic. The fully grade-separated Niles/I-880 Oakland and Union City would improve local traffic flow and reduce air pollution at existing rai

also be some grade separation benefits in the BNSF N/S (north of Merced) and UPRR N/S (sou

Central Valley. This network alternative would not provide direct HST service to San Francisco

Peninsula/Caltrain Corridor, and the I-580 corridor (Tri-Valley and Tracy). 

Noise and Vibration:i High, 

medium, or low potential impacts 

Medium potential of noise impacts for the overall alternative. All segments have a medium pot

with the expectation of Henry Miller and Henry Miller UPRR Connection, which have a low poteMedium to high potential of vibration impacts for the overall alternative. High potential of vibOakland to San Jose. Medium potential of vibration impacts, from San Jose to Gilroy and a low Valley. 

Land Use and Planning, Communities and Neighborhoods, Property, and Environmental Justice 

Compatibility: Majority of network alternative is compatible (high rating), given that it is withito an existing major rail or highway rights-of-way for most of the alignment. It exhibits low co

connects to the UPRR N/S or BNSF N/S in the Chowchilla area and a medium compatibility alo

Alignment in the Central Valley. Environmental Justice: This network alternative has medium environmental justice impact rat

between Oakland and San Jose, and a medium impact rating for the Caltrain Corridor between 

has a low impact rating from Gilroy to the Central Valley. The BNSF N/S alignment has a medfor low impact ratings in the Briggsmore and Chowchilla areas. 

Community: This network alternative would not affect community cohesion, given that the mwithin or immediately adjacent to an existing major rail or highway rights-of-way. Property: This network alternative has the potential for low property impacts as the alignmentransportation right-of-way or through rural land. This network alternative 

Aesthetics and Visual Resources: General impacts and rating. 

Segments visual ratings; (1) Oakland to Niles Junction =low; (2) Niles Junction to San Jose =

=medium; (4) Henry Miller to UPRR =low; and (5) BNSF N/S =low. Overall network alternativ
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.2-13 

Pacheco Pass: Oakland and San Jose Termini 

Farmlands:ii Ac (ha) potentially 

affected 

Farmland: 1,378.7 ac (557.96 ha) Impact up to 669.7 ac (271.04 ha) of prime farmland. The majority of potential farmland imp

the Pacheco, Henry Miller, BNSF (North/South), and UPRR (North/South) segments. Overall, t

along with the San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose Termini and San Jose, Oakland, and San tube would have the greatest potential impact on farmland within the Pacheco Pass network a

difference in overall farmland impacts within the Pacheco Pass network alternatives is less tha

Cultural Resources and Paleontological Resources:iii

Potential presence of historical resources in area of potential effect 

There are 106 known cultural resources. Historic properties and buildings dating from the 1900s and industrial complexes from the 192potential effects along with water delivery systems and canals dating from the 1890s, a sanitafacilities, freeway bridges dating from the 1940s, and residential properties dating from the 18network alternative was identified as having a low sensitivity for cultural resources. 

Hydrology and Water Resources:iv

Potential impacts and associated ac (ha) of floodplains and linear ft (m) of streams within potential impact study areas, ac (ha) lakes/other water bodies within study areas. 

Floodplains: 477.5 ac (193.24 ha) direct/ 1638.5 ac (663.09 ha) indirect Streams: 21,788 linear ft (6,640.9 linear m) direct/ 99,406 linear ft (30,298.89 linear m) indirLakes/Waterbodies: 4.5 ac (1.81 ha) direct/ 17.6 ac (7.13 ha) indirect Potentially affect Guadalupe River, Pajaro River, San Joaquin River, Stanislaus River, Tuolumnand Chowchilla River as well as the Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct and California Aqueduct among otSeveral watercourses would be crossed more than once. Includes tunnels that would avoid imand above ground water resources, and aerial structures that would minimize impact on flood

creeks, and channels. 

Biological Resources IncludingWetlands Ac (ha) of wetland, linear ft (m) of non-wetland waters, and number of special-status species within potential impact study areas 

Wetlandsv: 17.4 ac (7.04 ha) direct/ 1,825 ac (738.7 ha) indirect 

Non-Wetland Waters: 14,533 linear ft (4,429.6 linear m) Species: 49 special-status plant and 49 special-status wildlife species This network alternative could potentially result in significant impacts to special-status plant an

wetlands, and waters. Network alternative would be along existing transportation corridors with some portions in new 

Potentially result in a barrier to the movement of wildlife in areas where it severs wildlife movewith conservation and restoration plans and special management areas, such as the GEA. The alignment and stations and use of tunnels and aerial structures would minimize impacts on bio

Fault Crossings Hayward (Active) – At Grade - Adjacent and Parallel Hayward (Active) – At Grade 

Silver Creek (Potentially Active) – Above Grade Silver Creek (Potentially Active) – At Grade Calaveras (Active) – At Grade Ortigalita (Active) – At Grade 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.2-13 

Pacheco Pass: Oakland and San Jose Termini 

Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources:4

Number of resources rated high potential direct effects 

There are 21 public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges that are 0–150 ft (4network alternative. Few potential direct impacts are anticipated given that much of the netw

or directly adjacent to existing transportation rights-of-way, and few resources exist in areas walternative is not adjacent to or within this existing right-of-way. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

C. SAN FRANCISCO, OAKLAND, AND SAN JOSE TERMINI This network alternative is shown in Figure 7.2-14 and described in Table 7.2-14. The segments used for this represeCaltrain Corridor (SF to Dumbarton), Caltrain (Dumbarton to San Jose), Niles/I-880 (West Oakland to Niles Junction), NJunction to San Jose via I-880), Pacheco (San Jose to Western Valley), Henry Miller (Western Valley to BNSF/UPRR), H

Connection, BNSF - UPRR. 

Table 7.2-14 

Pacheco Pass: San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose Termini 

Physical/Operational Characteristics Network Alternative Description From San Francisco to San Jose, this network alternative would use the existing Caltrain right-

to San Jose, the Niles/I-880 Alignment would be used. The Pacheco and Henry Miller (to the be used between San Jose and the Central Valley, and the BNSF N/S (north of Merced) and U

Merced) Alignments would be used in the Central Valley. Station location options considered fTransbay Transit Center, Millbrae/SFO, Redwood CityWest Oakland/7th Street, Coliseum/Airpor

San Jose (Diridon), Gilroy (Caltrain), Merced (Downtown), and Briggsmore (Amtrak). 

Length 309.60 mi (498.26 km) Cost (dollars) $16.0 billion Express Travel Times (minutes) SF–LA=2:38; Oakland–LA=2:30; SJ–LA=2:09; SF–Sac=1:47; Oakland–Sac=1:38; SJ–Sac=1:1

Oakland–Fresno=1:12; SJ–Fresno=0:51; Gilroy–LA=1:57; SF–Gilroy=0:44; Oakland–Gilroy=0

Ridership This network alternative would directly serve downtown San Francisco and San Francisco Inte

San Jose and the I-880 corridor, Southern Santa Clara County, and the Central Valley. Total r

be about 8% less than the Pacheco “Base Case” forecast or about 86.1 million passengers a y

for the statewide HST system with this network alternative is $2.79 billion per year by 2030 (a

Pacheco “Base”). Although this option serves additional markets than the Pacheco Base Case 

system ridership is a result of the splitting of service between the San Francisco Peninsula and 

of the trains serving each side of the Bay). Additional frequency of service to San Francisco a

higher operational costs) would be needed to increase ridership for this network alternative. 

Constructability Portions of this network alternative are aligned in or along existing passenger rail lines and hig

operations on the existing commuter rail service and automobile traffic while constructing gradelevated sections, and stations would involve major construction issues/challenges. However, 

could be constructed incrementally to minimize impact to existing operations. 

O & M Cost (dollars per year) $1,174 million Operational Issues Average Speed 

SF–LA=164.2 mph (273.6 kph); Oakland–LA=170.7 mph (284.6 kph); SJ–LA=179.5 mph (299

mph (254.7 kph); Oakland–Sac=163.5 mph (272.6 kph); SJ–Sac=174 mph (290 kph); SF–Frekph); Oakland–Fresno=150.5 mph (250.8 kph); SJ–Fresno=164.3 mph (273.8 kph); Gilroy–LA
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

San Francisco, Oakla

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.2-14 

Pacheco Pass: San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose Termini 

kph); SF–Gilroy=102.3 mph (170.6 kph); Oakland–Gilroy=116 mph (193.3 kph); SJ–Gilroy=11Maximum Speed SF–LA=210 mph (350 kph); Oakland–LA=210 mph (350 kph); SJ–LA=210 mph (350 kph); SFkph); Oakland–Sac=210 mph (350 kph); SJ–Sac=210 mph (350 kph); SF–Fresno=210 mph (3

Fresno=210 mph (350 kph); SJ–Fresno=210 mph (350 kph); Gilroy–LA=210 mph (350 kph); 

kph); Oakland–Gilroy=180 mph (300 kph); SJ–Gilroy=180 mph (300 kph) HST operations would need to be coordinated and integrated with Caltrain service. Based on demand, service was divided evenly between the peninsula and east bay market. 

Potential Environmental Impacts Travel Conditions The Caltrain corridor Alignment would bring direct HST service up the San Francisco Peninsula 

San Francisco with potential stations in downtown San Francisco, at SFO (Millbrae), and a mid

Alto. It would directly serve Oakland and the East Bay with stations at West Oakland/7th Stree

International Airport (Coliseum/BART), Union City (BART), San Jose (Diridon) and would serve County with a station at Gilroy (Caltrain). Service to the Central Valley would be at Merced (DBriggsmore (Amtrak) station. This network alternative would increase connectivity and access

the Peninsula and SFO, the hub international airport for northern California, Oakland, the Oak(Coliseum/BART), southern Alameda County, San Jose, Southern Santa Clara County and MonSalinas area, and the Central Valley. The Gilroy station would be the closest HST station for Mand San Benito counties. The HST Network Alternative would provide a safer, more reliable, emode along the San Francisco Peninsula while improving the safety, reliability, and performancommuter service. The HST Network Alternative would greatly increase the capacity for intercand reduce existing automobile traffic. The fully grade-separated Caltrain corridor north of Gi

Alignment between Oakland and Union City would improve local traffic flow and reduce air pocrossings. There would also be some grade separation improvements in the BNSF N/S (north N/S (south of Merced) in the Central Valley. This network alternative would not provide direct corridor (Tri-Valley and Tracy). 

Noise and Vibration:i High, 

medium, or low potential impacts 

Medium potential of noise impacts for the overall alternative. All segments have a medium pot

with the expectation of Henry Miller and Henry Miller UPRR Connection, which have a low poteMedium to high potential of vibration impacts for the overall alternative. Medium potential of vSan Francisco to Dumbarton. High potential of vibration impacts from Dumbarton to San Josevibration impacts from Oakland to San Jose. Medium potential of vibration impacts, from San J

potential in the Central Valley. 

Land Use and Planning, Communities and Neighborhoods, Property, and Environmental Justice 

Compatibility: Majority of network alternative is compatible (high rating), given that it is withiadjacent to an existing major rail or highway rights-of-way for most of the alignment. It exhib

where it connects to the UPRR N/S or BNSF N/S in the Chowchilla area and a medium compatN/S Alignment in the Central Valley. Environmental Justice: This network alternative has medium environmental justice impact rat
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.2-14 

Pacheco Pass: San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose Termini 

Corridor between San Francisco and Gilroy, a medium impact rating for the east bay between and a low impact rating from Gilroy to the Central Valley. The BNSF N/S alignment has a medfor low impact ratings in the Briggsmore and Chowchilla areas. Community: This network alternative would not affect community cohesion, given that the mwithin or immediately adjacent to an existing major rail or highway rights-of-way. Property: This network alternative has the potential for low property impacts as the alignmentransportation right-of-way or through rural land. 

Aesthetics and Visual Resources: General impacts and rating. 

Segments visual ratings: (1) Caltrain – San Francisco to Dumbarton =low; (2) Caltrain – Dumb(3) Oakland to Niles Junction =low; (4) Niles Junction to San Jose =medium; (5) Pacheco =mto UPRR =low; and (7) BNSF N/S =low. Overall network alternative rating is low to medium. 

Farmlands:ii Ac (ha) potentially 

affected 

Farmland: 1,378.7 ac (557.96 ha) Impact up to 669.7 ac (271.04 ha) of prime farmland. The majority of potential farmland imp

the Pacheco, Henry Miller, BNSF (North/South), and UPRR (North/South) segments. Overall, t

along with the Oakland and San Jose Termini and San Jose, Oakland, and San Francisco via tr

the greatest potential impact on farmland within the Pacheco Pass network alternatives. 

Cultural Resources and Paleontological Resources:iii

Potential presence of historical resources in area of potential effect 

There are 195 known cultural resources. Of the Pacheco Pass network alternatives, this network alternative was identified to have the hresources. This network alternative extends through numerous historic districts in San Francisco. Historic 

dating from the 1900s and industrial complexes from the 1920s are within the area of potentia

water delivery systems and canals dating from the 1890s, a sanitary sewer system, railroad fadating from the 1940s, and residential properties dating from the 1880s. The Santa Clara de includes both prehistoric and historic resources. Overall, this network alternative was identifie

sensitivity for cultural resources. 

Hydrology and Water Resources:iv

Potential impacts and associated ac (ha) of floodplains and linear ft (m) of streams within potential impact study areas, ac (ha) lakes/other water bodies within study areas. 

Floodplains: 573.4 ac (232.03 ha) direct/ 1,813.9 ac (734.08 ha) indirect Streams: 24,401 linear ft (7,437.3 linear m) direct/ 104,672 linear ft (31,904.05 linear m) ind

Lakes/Waterbodies: 4.5 ac (1.81 ha) direct/ 21.0 ac (8.50 ha) indirect Of the Pacheco Pass network alternatives, this network alternative was identified to have the h

including streams, rivers, and canals as well as floodplains, groundwater, and impaired watersalternative was also identified as having the potential to encounter the most erosive soils. Potentially affect Guadalupe River, Pajaro River, San Joaquin River, Stanislaus River, Tuolumnand Chowchilla River as well as the Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct and California Aqueduct among otSeveral watercourses would be crossed more than once. Includes tunnels that would avoid imand above ground water resources, and aerial structures that would minimize impact on floodcreeks, and channels. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.2-14 

Pacheco Pass: San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose Termini 

Biological Resources IncludingWetlands Ac (ha) of wetland, linear ft (m) of non-wetland waters, and number of special-status species within potential impact study areas 

Wetlandsv: 17.5 ac (7.07 ha) direct/ 1,977 ac (800.2 ha) indirect 

Non-Wetland Waters: 15,123 linear ft (4,609.4 linear m) Species: 63 special-status plant and 53 special-status wildlife species Of the Pacheco Pass network alternatives, this network alternative would have the potential to special-status plant and wildlife species and waters. Potentially significant impacts to special-s

species, wetlands, and waters. Network alternative would be along existing transportation corridors with some portions in new 

Potentially result in a barrier to the movement of wildlife in areas where it severs wildlife movewith conservation and restoration plans and special management areas, such as the GEA. The alignment and stations and use of tunnels and aerial structures would minimize impacts on bio

Fault Crossings San Bruno (Potentially Active) – At Grade Buried Trace of Unnamed Fault (Potentially Active) – At Grade 

Hayward (Active) – At Grade - Adjacent and Parallel Hayward (Active) – At Grade Silver Creek (Potentially Active) – Above Grade Silver Creek (Potentially Active) – At Grade Calaveras (Active) – At Grade Ortigalita (Active) – At Grade 

Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources:4Number of resources rated high potential direct effects 

There are 31 public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges that are 0–150 ft (4network alternative. Few potential direct impacts are anticipated given that much of the netw

or directly adjacent to existing transportation rights-of-way, and few resources exist in areas walternative is not adjacent to or within this existing right-of-way. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

D. SAN JOSE TERMINUS This network alternative is shown in Figure 7.2-15 and described in Table 7.2-15. The segments used for this represePacheco (San Jose to Western Valley), Henry Miller (Western Valley to BNSF/UPRR), Henry Miller UPRR Connection, BN

Table 7.2-15 

Pacheco Pass: San Jose Terminus 

Physical/Operational Characteristics Network Alternative Description From San Jose, this network alternative would use the Pacheco and Henry Miller (to the UPRR

and the BNSF N/S (north of Merced) and UPRR N/S (south of Merced) Alignments would be usStation location options considered for this alternative are San Jose (Diridon), Gilroy (Caltrain)

and Briggsmore (Amtrak). 

Length 213.15 mi (343.04 km) Cost (dollars) $8.0 billion Express Travel Times (minutes) SJ–LA=2:09; SJ–Sac=1:18; SJ–Fresno=0:51; Gilroy–LA=1:57; SJ–Gilroy=0:15 Ridership This network alternative would directly serve downtown San Jose and the Central Valley and w

less ridership and revenue potential than other Network Alternatives that directly serve more sTotal ridership for this alternative is forecast at about 15% less than the Pacheco “Base Case” 80.0 million passengers per year. Revenue for the statewide HST system with this network al

per year by 2030 (about 13.6% less than the Pacheco “Base”). 

Constructability Portions of this network alternative are aligned in or along existing passenger rail lines. Maint

existing passenger rail service and parallel roadways while constructing grade separations, tunand stations would involve major construction issues/challenges. However, the HST infrastruc

constructed incrementally to minimize impact to existing operations. 

O & M Cost (dollars per year) $1,099 million Operational Issues Average Speed 

SJ–LA=179.5 mph (299.2 kph); SJ–Sac=174 mph (290 kph); SJ–Fresno=164.3 mph (273.8 kp

(305.4 kph); SJ–Gilroy=114.6 mph (191 kph) Maximum Speed SJ–LA=210 mph (350 kph); SJ–Sac=210 mph (350 kph); SJ–Fresno=210 mph (350 kph);Gilrokph); SJ–Gilroy=180 mph (300 kph) HST operations would need to be coordinated and integrated with all transportation services aoperations would need to be coordinated and integrated with Caltrain service between San Jo
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.2-15 

Pacheco Pass: San Jose Terminus 

Potential Environmental Impacts Travel Conditions This network alternative would increase connectivity and accessibility San Jose, Southern Sant

Monterey/ Santa Cruz/ Salinas area, and the Central Valley. The Gilroy station would be the c

Monterey, Santa Cruz, and San Benito counties. The HST Network Alternative would provide a energy-efficient intercity mode. The HST Network Alternative would greatly increase the capacommuter travel and reduce existing automobile traffic. The fully grade-separated Caltrain coand San Jose would improve local traffic flow and reduce air pollution at existing rail crossingssome grade separation benefits in the BNSF N/S (north of Merced) and UPRR N/S (south of MValley. This network alternative would not provide direct HST service to San Francisco, SFO, t

Corridor between San Francisco and San Jose, Oakland, Oakland Airport, the East Bay, south A

I-580 corridor resulting in considerably less Travel Conditions benefits (travel times, reliability, sustainable capacity, and passenger cost) than other network alternatives that directly serve astations/markets in the Bay Area. 

Noise and Vibration:i High, 

medium, or low potential impacts 

Medium potential of noise impacts for the overall alternative. All segments have a medium pot

with the expectation of Henry Miller and Henry Miller UPRR Connection, which have a low poteMedium potential of vibration impacts for the overall alternative. Medium potential of vibration to Gilroy and a low potential in the Central Valley. 

Land Use and Planning, Communities and Neighborhoods, Property, and Environmental Justice 

Compatibility: Majority of network alternative is compatible (high rating), given that it is withiadjacent to an existing major rail or highway rights-of-way for most of the alignment. It exhib

where it connects to the UPRR N/S or BNSF N/S in the Chowchilla area and a medium compatN/S Alignment in the Central Valley. Environmental Justice: This network alternative has medium environmental justice impact rat

Corridor between San Jose and Gilroy, and a low impact rating from Gilroy to the Central Vallealignment has a medium impact rating except for low impact ratings in the Briggsmore and ChCommunity: This network alternative would not affect community cohesion, given that the m

within or immediately adjacent to an existing major rail or highway rights-of-way. Property: This network alternative has the potential for low property impacts as the alignmen

transportation right-of-way or through rural land. 

Aesthetics and Visual Resources: General impacts and rating 

Segments visual ratings: (1) Pacheco =medium; (2) Henry Miller to UPRR =low; and (3) BNS

network alternative rating is low to medium. 

Farmlands:ii Ac (ha) potentially 

affected 

Farmland: 1,372.3 ac (555.36ha) Impact up to 663.3 ac (268.45 ha) of prime farmland. The majority of potential farmland imp

the Pacheco, Henry Miller, BNSF (North/South), and UPRR (North/South) segments. Overall, t

along with the San Francisco and San Jose Termini and San Jose, San Francisco, and Oakland have the Least Potential Impacts (LPI) to farmland within the Pacheco Pass network alternativ
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.2-15 

Pacheco Pass: San Jose Terminus 

Cultural Resources and Paleontological Resources:iii

Potential presence of historical resources in area of potential effect 

There are 78 known cultural resources. Of the Pacheco Pass network alternatives, this network alternative was identified to have the lresources. Historic resources in small towns of Santa Clara Valley. Historic properties and buildings datinwithin the area of potential effects along with water delivery systems and canals dating from tsewer system, railroad facilities, freeway bridges dating from the 1940s, and residential prope1890s. Overall, this network alternative was identified as having a low sensitivity for cultural r

Hydrology and Water Resources:iv

Potential impacts and associated ac (ha) of floodplains and linear ft (m) of streams within potential impact study areas, ac (ha) lakes/other water bodies within study areas 

Floodplains: 424.9 ac (171.97 ha) direct/ 1,457.8 ac (589.97 ha) indirect Streams: 17,663 linear ft (5,383.7 linear m) direct/ 85,306 linear ft (26,001.25 linear m) indirLakes/Waterbodies: 3.8 ac (1.55 ha) direct/ 16.3 ac (6.60 ha) indirect Of the Pacheco Pass network alternatives, this network alternative was identified to have the lresources including streams, rivers, and canals, as well as lakes, floodplains, groundwater, and network alternative was also identified as having the potential to encounter the least amount Potentially affect Guadalupe River, Pajaro River, San Joaquin River, Stanislaus River, Tuolumnand Chowchilla River as well as the Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct and California Aqueduct among otSeveral watercourses would be crossed more than once. Includes tunnels that would avoid imand above ground water resources, and aerial structures that would minimize impact on flood

creeks, and channels. 

Biological Resources IncludingWetlands Ac (ha) of wetland, linear ft (m) of non-wetland waters, and number of special-status species within potential impact study areas 

Wetlandsv: 15.5 ac (6.26 ha) direct/ 1,449 ac (586.6 ha) indirect 

Non-Wetland Waters: 14,395 linear ft (4,387.5 linear m) Species: 46 special-status plant and 38 special-status wildlife species Of the Pacheco Pass network alternatives, this network alternative would have the potential to status plant and wildlife species. This network alternative was also identified to have the leaswetlands and waters. Potentially significant impacts to special-status plant and wildlife specieNetwork ALTERNATIVE would be along existing transportation corridors with some portions in Potentially result in a barrier to the movement of wildlife in areas where it severs wildlife movewith conservation and restoration plans and special management areas, such as the GEA. The 

alignment and stations and use of tunnels and aerial structures would minimize impacts on bio

Fault Crossings Silver Creek (Potentially Active) – At Grade Calaveras (Active) – At Grade 

Ortigalita (Active) – At Grade 

Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources:4Number of resources rated high potential direct effects 

There are eight public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges that are 0–150 fthe network alternative. Few potential direct impacts are anticipated given that much of the nwithin or directly adjacent to existing transportation rights-of-way, and few resources exist in 

alternative is not adjacent to or within this existing right-of-way. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

E. SAN JOSE, SAN FRANCISCO, AND OAKLAND – VIA TRANSBAY TUBE This network alternative is shown in Figure 7.2-16 and described in Table 7.2-16. The segments used for this represeTrans Bay Crossing – Transbay Transit Center, Caltrain Corridor (SF to Dumbarton), Caltrain (Dumbarton to San Jose), Western Valley), Henry Miller (Western Valley to BNSF/UPRR), Henry Miller UPRR Connection, BNSF - UPRR. 

Table 7.2-16 

Pacheco Pass: San Jose, San Francisco, and Oakland – via Transbay Tube 

Physical/Operational Characteristics Network Alternative Description From Oakland to San Francisco, this network alternative would use a transbay tube crossing. 

San Jose, this network alternative would use the existing Caltrain right-of-way. From San Jose

alternative would use the Pacheco and Henry Miller (to the UPRR) Alignment Alternatives and Merced) and UPRR N/S (south of Merced) Alignments would be used in the Central Valley. Staconsidered for this alternative are West Oakland, Transbay Transit Center, Millbrae/SFO, Redw(Diridon), Gilroy (Caltrain), Merced (Downtown), and Briggsmore (Amtrak). 

Length 276.31 mi (444.69 km) Cost (dollars) $17.0 billion Express Travel Times (minutes) SF–LA=2:38; Oakland–LA=2:43; SJ–LA=2:09; SF–Sac=1:47; Oakland–Sac=1 :43; SJ–Sac=1:

Oakland–Fresno=1 :27; SJ–Fresno=0:51; Gilroy–LA=1:57; SF–Gilroy=0:44; Oakland–Gilroy=0 

Ridership This network alternative would directly serve Oakland, downtown San Francisco and San Fran

Airport (SFO), San Jose, the Caltrain Corridor and the Central Valley and would have high ridepotential. Total ridership and revenue for the statewide HST system with this network alternaabout 2% higher than the Pacheco “Base Case” alternative, or at about 95.8 million passenge

Revenue would be about $3.16 billion a year by 2030. 

Constructability Constructing a new transbay tube between San Francisco and Oakland would involve major co

the San Francisco Bay and special construction methods and mitigations would be required. P

alternative are aligned in or along existing passenger rail lines and highways. Maintaining opecommuter rail service and automobile traffic while constructing grade separations, tunnels, elestations would involve major construction issues/challenges. However, the HST infrastructure 

incrementally to minimize impact to existing operations. 

O & M Cost (dollars per year) 1,196 million Operational Issues Average Speed 

SF–LA=164.2 mph (273.6 kph); Oakland–LA=156.8 mph (261.3 kph); SJ–LA=179.5 mph (299

mph (254.7 kph); Oakland–Sac=147 mph (244.9 kph); SJ–Sac=174 mph (290 kph); SF–Fresnkph); Oakland–Fresno=132.9 mph (221.5 kph); SJ–Fresno=164.3 mph (273.8 kph); Gilroy–LA

kph); SF–Gilroy=102.3 mph (170.6 kph); Oakland–Gilroy=98 mph (163.38 kph); SJ–Gilroy=11

Maximum Speed 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.2-16 

Pacheco Pass: San Jose, San Francisco, and Oakland – via Transbay Tube 

SF–LA=210 mph (350 kph); Oakland–LA=210 mph (350 kph); SJ–LA=210 mph (350 kph);SF–kph); Oakland–Sac=210 mph (350 kph); SJ–Sac=210 mph (350 kph); SF–Fresno=210 mph (3

Fresno=210 mph (350 kph); SJ–Fresno=210 mph (350 kph); Gilroy–LA=210 mph (350 kph); 

kph); Oakland–Gilroy=180 mph (300 kph); SJ–Gilroy=180 mph (300 kph) HST operations would need to be coordinated and integrated with Caltrain service. 

Potential Environmental Impacts Travel Conditions The Caltrain corridor Alignment would bring direct HST service up the San Francisco Peninsula 

San Francisco. The transbay tube would provide direct service to Oakland, with a station in W

Caltrain Corridor would serve the San Francisco International Airport with a station at (Millbrae

station at Palo Alto. HST service to San Jose would be at the Diridon Station. The Gilroy StatioSouthern Santa Clara County, and the Central Valley would be served by stations in Merced an

network alternative would increase connectivity and accessibility to Oakland, San Francisco, th

the hub international airport for northern California, San Jose, Southern Santa Clara County anCruz/Salinas area, and the Central Valley. The HST Network Alternative would provide a saferefficient intercity mode along the San Francisco Peninsula while improving the safety, reliabilit

the regional commuter service. The HST Network Alternative would greatly increase the capacommuter travel and reduce existing automobile traffic. The fully grade-separated Caltrain co

would improve local traffic flow and reduce air pollution at existing rail crossings. There would separation benefits in the BNSF N/S (north of Merced) and UPRR N/S (south of Merced) segmValley. This network alternative would not provide direct HST service to Oakland Airport, sout

the I-580 corridor. 

Noise and Vibration:i High, 

medium, or low potential impacts 

Medium potential of noise impacts for the overall alternative. All segments have a medium pot

with the expectation of Henry Miller and Henry Miller UPRR Connection, which have a low poteMedium to high potential of vibration impacts for the overall alternative. Medium potential of vSan Francisco to Dumbarton. High potential of vibration impacts from Dumbarton to San Josevibration impacts, from San Jose to Gilroy and a low potential in the Central Valley. 

Land Use and Planning, Communities and Neighborhoods, Property, and Environmental Justice 

Compatibility: Majority of network alternative is compatible (high rating), given that it is withi

adjacent to an existing major rail or highway rights-of-way for most of the alignment. It exhib

where it connects to the UPRR N/S or BNSF N/S in the Chowchilla area and a medium compatN/S Alignment in the Central Valley. Environmental Justice: This network alternative has medium environmental impact justice ratCorridor between San Francisco and Gilroy and a low impact rating from Gilroy to the Central alignment has a medium impact rating except for low impact ratings in the Briggsmore and ChCommunity: This network alternative would not affect community cohesion, given that the m

within or immediately adjacent to an existing major rail or highway rights-of-way. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

San Jose, San Francisco, and Oak

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.2-16 

Pacheco Pass: San Jose, San Francisco, and Oakland – via Transbay Tube 

Property: This network alternative has the potential for low property impacts as the alignmentransportation right-of-way or through rural land. 

Aesthetics and Visual Resources: General impacts and rating. 

Segments visual ratings: (1) Caltrain – San Francisco to Dumbarton =lo; (2) Caltrain – Dumba

(3) Pacheco =medium; (4) Henry Miller to UPRR =low; (5) Trans Bay Crossing =none; and (6Overall network alternative rating is low to medium. 

Farmlands:ii Ac (ha) potentially 

affected 

Farmland: 1,372.3 ac (555.36ha) Impact up to 663.3 ac (268.45 ha) of prime farmland. The majority of potential farmland imp

the Pacheco, Henry Miller, BNSF (North/South), and UPRR (North/South) segments. Overall, t

along with the San Francisco and San Jose Termini and San Jose Terminus a would have the L(LPI) to farmland within the Pacheco Pass network alternatives. 

Cultural Resources and Paleontological Resources:iii

Potential presence of historical resources in area of potential effect 

There are 108 known cultural resources. This network alternative extends through numerous historic districts in San Francisco. Historic 

dating from the 1900s are within the area of potential effects along with water delivery systemfrom the 1890s, a sanitary sewer system, railroad facilities, freeway bridges dating from the 1properties dating from the 1880s. The area around the Trans Bay crossing likely includes histoGold Rush period through the 1906 earthquake. The Santa Clara de Asis Mission in San Jose 

and historic resources. Overall, this network alternative was identified as having a moderate sresources. 

Hydrology and Water Resources:iv

Potential impacts and associated ac (ha) of floodplains and linear ft (m) of streams within potential impact study areas, ac (ha) lakes/other water bodies within study areas. 

Floodplains: 520.8 ac (210.76 ha) direct/ 1,633.2 ac (660.96 ha) indirect Streams: 20,276 linear ft (6,180.1 linear m) direct/ 90,572 linear ft (27,606.42 linear m) indirLakes/Waterbodies: 40.3 ac (16.32 ha) direct/ 255.2 ac (103.27 ha) indirect Potentially affect San Francisco Bay, Guadalupe River, Pajaro River, San Joaquin River, StanislRiver, Merced River, and Chowchilla River as well as the Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct and California water resources. Several watercourses would be crossed more than once. Includes tunnels t

on the floodplain and above ground water resources, and aerial structures that would minimizand streams, creeks, and channels. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.2-16 

Pacheco Pass: San Jose, San Francisco, and Oakland – via Transbay Tube 

Biological Resources IncludingWetlands Ac (ha) of wetland, linear ft (m) of non-wetland waters, and number of special-status species within potential impact study areas 

Wetlandsv: 38.4 ac (15.54 ha) direct/ 2,955 ac (1,195.9 ha) indirect 

Non-Wetland Waters: 14,395 linear ft (4,387.5 linear m) Species: 59 special-status plant and 53 special-status wildlife species Of the Pacheco Pass network alternatives, this network alternative along with two other netwohave the potential to impact the most special-status wildlife species, and a substantial amount of the Trans Bay crossing. This alternative could potentially result in impacts on biological resBay, including potentially significant impacts to special-status plant and wildlife species, wetlanNetwork alternative would be along existing transportation corridors with some portions in new 

Potentially result in a barrier to the movement of wildlife in areas where it severs wildlife movewith conservation and restoration plans and special management areas, such as the GEA. The alignment and stations and use of tunnels and aerial structures would minimize impacts on bio

Fault Crossings San Bruno (Potentially Active) – At Grade Buried Trace of Unnamed Fault (Potentially Active) – At Grade 

Silver Creek (Potentially Active) – At Grade Calaveras (Active) – At Grade Ortigalita (Active) – At Grade 

Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources:4Number of resources rated high potential direct effects 

There are 19 public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges that are 0–150 ft (4network alternative. Few potential direct impacts are anticipated given that much of the netw

or directly adjacent to existing transportation rights-of-way, and few resources exist in areas walternative is not adjacent to or within this existing right-of-way. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

F. SAN JOSE, OAKLAND, AND SAN FRANCISCO – VIA TRANSBAY TUBE This network alternative is shown in Figure 7.2-17 and described in Table 7.2-17. The segments used for this represeTrans Bay Crossing – Transbay Transit Center, Niles/I-880 (West Oakland to Niles Junction), Niles/I-880 (Niles Junctio(San Jose to Western Valley), Henry Miller (Western Valley to BNSF/UPRR), Henry Miller UPRR Connection, BNSF - UPR

Table 7.2-17 

Pacheco Pass: San Jose, Oakland, and San Francisco– via Transbay Tube 

Physical/Operational Characteristics Network Alternative Description This network alternative would require a new transbay tube from San Francisco to Oakland. F

Jose, this network alternative would use the Niles/I-880 Alignment. From San Jose, this netwthe Pacheco and Henry Miller (to the UPRR) Alignment Alternatives and the BNSF N/S (north o(south of Merced) Alignments in the Central Valley. Station location options considered for th

Transbay Transit Center, West Oakland/7th Street, Coliseum/Airport, Union City (BART), San J

(Caltrain), Merced (Downtown), and Briggsmore (Amtrak). 

Length 265.66 mi (427.54 km) Cost (dollars) $16.3 billion Express Travel Times (minutes) SF–LA=2:35; Oakland–LA=2:30; SJ–LA=2:09; SF–Sac=1:52; Oakland–Sac=1:38; SJ–Sac=1:1

Oakland–Sac=1:12; SJ–Sac=0:51; Gilroy–LA=1:57; SF–Gilroy=040; Oakland–Gilroy=0:36; SJ–

Ridership This network alternative would directly serve downtown San Francisco, downtown Oakland an

Airport, Union City and San Jose, Southern Santa Clara County, and the Central Valley and wo

and revenue potential. Total ridership and revenue for the statewide HST system with this ne

forecast to be about 1.6% less than the Pacheco “Base Case” alternative, or at 92.4 million pa2030. Revenue is estimated at $3.05 billion per year by 2030. 

Constructability Constructing a new transbay tube between Oakland and San Francisco would involve major co

the San Francisco Bay and special construction methods and mitigations would be required. P

alternative are aligned in or along existing passenger rail lines and highways. Maintaining operations on the existing commuter rail service and automobile traffic while cons

separations, tunnels, elevated sections, and stations would involve major construction issues/cHST infrastructure could be constructed incrementally to minimize impact to existing operation

O & M Cost (dollars per year) $1,179 million Operational Issues Average Speed 

SF–LA=164.6 mph (274.4 kph); Oakland–LA=170.7 mph (284.6 kph); SJ–LA=179.5 mph (299mph (263.3 kph); Oakland–Sac=163.5 mph (272.6 kph); SJ–Sac=174 mph (290 kph); Oaklan

(250.8 kph); SJ–Fresno=164.3 mph (273.8 kph); Gilroy–LA=183.2 mph (305.4 kph); SF–Gilrokph); Oakland–Gilroy=116 mph (193.3 kph); SJ–Gilroy=114.6 mph (191 kph) 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.2-17 

Pacheco Pass: San Jose, Oakland, and San Francisco– via Transbay Tube 

Maximum Speed SF–LA=210 mph (350 kph); Oakland–LA=210 mph (350 kph); SJ–LA=210 mph (350 kph);SF–kph); Oakland–Sac=210 mph (350 kph); SJ–Sac=210 mph (350 kph); SF–Fresno=210 mph (3

Sac=210 mph (350 kph); SJ–Sac=210 mph (350 kph); Gilroy–LA=210 mph (350 kph); SF–Gilr

Oakland–Gilroy=180 mph (300 kph); SJ–Gilroy=180 mph (300 kph) HST operations would need to be coordinated and integrated with Caltrain service between Sa

Potential Environmental Impacts Travel Conditions The Niles/I-880 Alignment would bring direct HST service up the East Bay and the transbay tu

service to downtown San Francisco. It would directly serve Oakland and the East Bay with sta

Oakland/7th Street, Coliseum/Airport, Union City (BART), San Jose (Diridon) and would serve s

County with a station at Gilroy (Caltrain). Service to the Central Valley would be at Merced (DBriggsmore (Amtrak) stations. This network alternative would increase connectivity and accesOakland, the Oakland International Airport (Coliseum/BART), southern Alameda County, San JClara County and Monterey/ Santa Cruz/ Salinas area, and the Central Valley. The Gilroy statHST station for Monterey, Santa Cruz, and San Benito counties. The HST Network Alternative more reliable, energy-efficient intercity mode along the East Bay while improving the safety, rperformance of the regional commuter service. The HST Network Alternative would greatly inintercity and commuter travel and reduce existing automobile traffic. The fully grade-separatebetween Gilroy and San Jose, Niles/I-880 Alignment between Oakland and Union City would imand reduce air pollution at existing rail crossings. There would also be some grade separation N/S (north of Merced) and UPRR N/S (south of Merced) segments in the Central Valley. This would not provide direct service to SFO, the mid-SF Peninsula, and the I-580 corridor (the Tri-

Noise and Vibration:i High, 

medium, or low potential impacts 

Medium potential of noise impacts for the overall alternative. All segments have a medium pot

with the expectation of Henry Miller and Henry Miller UPRR Connection, which have a low poteMedium to high potential of vibration impacts for the overall alternative. Medium potential of vSan Francisco to Dumbarton. High potential of vibration impacts from Oakland to San Jose. Mvibration impacts, from San Jose to Gilroy and a low potential in the Central Valley. 

Land Use and Planning, Communities and Neighborhoods, Property, and Environmental Justice 

Compatibility: Majority of network alternative is compatible (high rating), given that it is withiadjacent to an existing major rail or highway rights-of-way for most of the alignment. It exhib

where it connects to the UPRR N/S or BNSF N/S in the Chowchilla area and a medium compatN/S Alignment in the Central Valley. Environmental Justice: This network alternative has medium environmental impact justice rat

between Oakland and San Jose and for the Caltrain Corridor between San Jose and Gilroy, and from Gilroy to the Central Valley. The BNSF N/S alignment has a medium impact rating excepin the Briggsmore and Chowchilla areas. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

San Jose, Oakland, and San Fran

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.2-17 

Pacheco Pass: San Jose, Oakland, and San Francisco– via Transbay Tube 

Community: This network alternative would not affect community cohesion, given that the mwithin or immediately adjacent to an existing major rail or highway rights-of-way. Property: This network alternative has the potential for low property impacts as the alignmentransportation right-of-way or through rural land. 

Aesthetics and Visual Resources: General impacts and rating 

Segments visual ratings: (1) Oakland to Niles Junction =low; (2) Niles Junction to San Jose =

=medium; (4) Henry Miller to UPRR =low; (5) Trans Bay Crossing =none; and (6) BNSF N/S =

alternative rating is low to medium. 

Farmlands:ii Ac (ha) potentially 

affected 

Farmland: 1,378.7 ac (557.96 ha) Impact up to 669.7 ac (271.04 ha) of prime farmland. The majority of potential farmland imp

the Pacheco, Henry Miller, BNSF (North/South), and UPRR (North/South) segments. Overall, t

along with the Oakland and San Jose Termini and San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose Termgreatest potential impact on farmland within the Pacheco Pass network alternatives. 

Cultural Resources and Paleontological Resources:iii

Potential presence of historical resources in area of potential effect 

There are 111 known cultural resources. Historic properties and industrial complexes dating from the 1920s and 1940s are within the aalong with water delivery systems and canals dating from the 1890s, a sanitary sewer system, freeway bridges dating from the 1940s, and residential properties dating from the 1880s. The Bay crossing likely includes historic artifacts from the Gold Rush period through the 1906 earthnetwork alternative was identified as having a low sensitivity for cultural resources. 

Hydrology and Water Resources:iv

Potential impacts and associated ac (ha) of floodplains and linear ft (m) of streams within potential impact study areas, ac (ha) lakes/other water bodies within study areas. 

Floodplains: 477.5 ac (193.24 ha) direct/ 1,685.1 ac (681.98 ha) indirect Streams: 30,278 linear ft (9,228.9 linear m) direct/ 137,768 linear ft (41,991.56 linear m) ind

Lakes/Waterbodies: 41.0 ac (16.58 ha) direct/ 253.1 ac (102.43 ha) indirect Of the Pacheco Pass network alternatives, this network alternative was identified to have the hon lakes and the San Francisco Bay due to the Trans Bay crossing. Potentially affect San Francisco Bay, Guadalupe River, Pajaro River, San Joaquin River, StanislRiver, Merced River, and Chowchilla River as well as the Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct and California water resources. Several watercourses would be crossed more than once. Includes tunnels ton the floodplain and above ground water resources, and aerial structures that would minimizand streams, creeks, and channels. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.2-17 

Pacheco Pass: San Jose, Oakland, and San Francisco– via Transbay Tube 

Biological Resources IncludingWetlands Ac (ha) of wetland, linear ft (m) of non-wetland waters, and number of special-status species within potential impact study areas 

Wetlandsv: 40.2 ac (16.28 ha) direct/ 3,179 ac (1,286.5 ha) indirect 

Non-Wetland Waters: 14,553 linear ft (4,429.6 linear m) Species: 50 special-status plant and 49 special-status wildlife species Of the Pacheco Pass network alternatives, this network alternative along with one other netwohave the potential to impact the least special-status wildlife species. This network alternative network alternatives would have the potential to impact the most area of impact on wetlands. 

potentially result in impacts on biological resources in San Francisco Bay as a result of the TraPotentially significant impacts to special-status plant and wildlife species, wetlands, and waterNetwork alternative would be along existing transportation corridors with some portions in new 

Potentially result in a barrier to the movement of wildlife in areas where it severs wildlife movewith conservation and restoration plans and special management areas. The placement of the and use of tunnels and aerial structures would minimize impacts on biological resources. 

Fault Crossings Hayward (Active) – At Grade - Adjacent and Parallel Hayward (Active) – At Grade 

Silver Creek (Potentially Active) – Above Grade Silver Creek (Potentially Active) – At Grade Calaveras (Active) – At Grade Ortigalita (Active) – At Grade 

Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources:4Number of resources rated high potential direct effects 

There are 22 public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges that are 0–150 ft (4network alternative. Few potential direct impacts are anticipated given that much of the netw

or directly adjacent to existing transportation rights-of-way, and few resources exist in areas walternative is not adjacent to or within this existing right-of-way. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

7.2.3 Pacheco Pass with Altamont Pass (local service) 

A. SAN FRANCISCO AND SAN JOSE TERMINI This network alternative is shown in Figure 7.2-18 and described in Table 7.2-18. The segments used for this represe

Caltrain Corridor (SF to Dumbarton), Caltrain (Dumbarton to San Jose), Dumbarton (High Bridge), UPRR (Niles to Altam

Downtown (UPRR Connection)15, Pacheco (San Jose to Western Valley), Henry Miller (Western Valley to BNSF/UPRR), 

Connection, UPRR. 

Table 7.2-18 

Pacheco Pass with Altamont Pass (Local Service): San Francisco and San Jose Termini 

Physical/Operational Characteristics Network Alternative Description From San Francisco to San Jose, this network alternative would use the existing Caltrain rail ri

Jose, this network alternative would use the Pacheco and Henry Miller (to the UPRR) AlignmenUPRR N/S Alignment in the Central Valley. From Redwood City, this network alternative would 

Francisco Bay in the Dumbarton Corridor. The Altamont Pass would use the UPRR Alignment Tracy. Station location options considered for this alternative are Transbay Transit Center, Mi(Caltrain), San Jose (Diridon), Gilroy (Caltrain), Merced (Downtown), and Modesto (Downtownwould be at Union City (Shinn), Pleasanton (I-680/Bernal Road), and Tracy (Downtown). 

Length 339.16 mi (545.83 km) Cost (dollars) $18.3 billion Express Travel Times (minutes) Altamont 

SF–LA=2:45; SJ–LA=2:26; SF–Sac=1:15; SJ–Sac=0:56; SF–Fresno=1:27; SJ–Fresno=1:08; PTracy–LA=1:59; SF–Tracy=0:46; SJ–Tracy=0:27 Pacheco SF–LA=2:38; SJ–LA=2:09; SF–Sac=1:47; SJ–Sac=1:18; SF–Fresno=1:20; SJ–Fresno=0:51; GGilroy=0:44; SJ–Gilroy=0:15 

Ridership This network alternative would directly serve downtown San Francisco and San Francisco Inte

San Jose, southern Santa Clara County, Southern Alameda County, the I-580 Corridor and Tri-Central Valley and would have high ridership and revenue potential. Total ridership for the sta

this network alternative is forecast to be about 3% higher than the Pacheco “Base Case” netw

96.2 million passengers per year by 2030. However, revenue is estimated to be about 3.2 per

14 Does not include “express tracks” through Pleasanton Station. 15 Does not include “express tracks” through Tracy Downtown Station. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.2-18 

Pacheco Pass with Altamont Pass (Local Service): San Francisco and San Jose Termini 

Pacheco “Base Case” network alternative at $2.99 billion per year by 2030. 

Constructability Constructing a new bridge crossing along the Dumbarton corridor would involve major constru

sensitive wetlands, saltwater marshes, and aquatic habitat. Special construction methods and required. Portions of this network alternative are aligned in or along existing passenger rail linMaintaining operations on the existing passenger rail service and automobile traffic while consseparations, tunnels, elevated sections, and stations would involve major construction issues/cHST infrastructure could be constructed incrementally to minimize impact to existing operation

O & M Cost (dollars per year) $1,171 million Operational Issues Altamont 

Average Speed SF–LA=165.2_ mph (265.8 kph); SJ–LA=176.5 mph (284 kph);SF–Sac=121.3 mph (195.2 kph

(218.3 kph); SF–Fresno=137.3 mph (221.4 kph); SJ–Fresno=153.6 mph (247.8 kph); Pleasan

(292.3 kph); Tracy–LA=183.4 mph (305.7 kph); SF–Tracy=100.6 mph (162.3 kph); SJ–Tracy=

Maximum Speed SF–LA=210 mph (350 kph); SJ–LA=210 mph (350 kph); SF–Sac=198 mph (330 kph); SJ–SacSF–Fresno=210 mph (350 kph); SJ–Fresno=210 mph (350 kph); Livermore–LA=210 mph (35

mph (350 kph); SF–Tracy=169.2 mph (282 kph); SJ–Tracy=180 mph (300 kph) Pacheco Average Speed SF–LA=164.2 mph (273.6 kph); SJ–LA=179.5 mph (299.2 kph) ;SF–Sac=152.8 mph (254.7 kp(290 kph); SF–Fresno=139.5 mph (232.5 kph); SJ–Fresno=164.3 mph (273.8 kph); Gilroy–LAkph); SF–Gilroy=102.3 mph (170.6 kph); SJ–Gilroy=114.6 mph (191 kph) Maximum Speed SF–LA=210 mph (350 kph); SJ–LA=210 mph 350 kph) ;SF–Sac=210 mph (350 kph); SJ–Sac=Fresno=210 mph (350 kph); SJ–Fresno=210 mph (350 kph); Gilroy–LA=210 mph (350 kph); 

kph); SJ–Gilroy=180 mph (300 kph) HST operations would need to be coordinated and integrated with Caltrain service and ACE sePacheco and Altamont alignment alternatives to serve the Bay Area provides greater capacity, reliability (in terms of redundancy). To serve the additional markets, more train operations wo
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Pacheco Pass with Altam

San Francis

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.2-18 

Pacheco Pass with Altamont Pass (Local Service): San Francisco and San Jose Termini 

Potential Environmental Impacts Travel Conditions The Caltrain corridor Alignment would bring direct HST service up the San Francisco Peninsula 

San Francisco with potential stations in downtown San Francisco, at SFO (Millbrae), a mid-PenAlto, and a San Jose Station (Diridon). HST service would be provided to Southern Santa ClarStation, with service to the Central Valley at Merced and Modesto. The Altamont Pass would with stations in Union City (Shinn), Pleasanton (I-680/Bernal), and downtown Tracy. This netincrease connectivity and accessibility to San Francisco, the Peninsula and SFO, the hub intern

northern California, southern Alameda County, San Jose, Southern Santa Clara County and Mo

Salinas area, the I-580 Corridor and Tri-Valley area, and the Central Valley. The Gilroy station HST station for Monterey, Santa Cruz, and San Benito counties. The HST Network Alternative 

more reliable, energy-efficient intercity mode along the San Francisco Peninsula while improvi

and performance of the regional commuter service. The HST Network Alternative would greafor intercity and commuter travel and reduce existing automobile traffic. The fully grade-sepanorth of Gilroy would improve local traffic flow and reduce air pollution at existing rail crossingsome grade separation benefits in the UPRR in the I-580 corridor and UPRR N/S Alignment se

Central Valley. This network alternative would not provide direct HST service to Oakland, and 

Noise and Vibration:i High, 

medium, or low potential impacts 

Medium potential of noise impacts for the overall alternative. All segments have a medium pot

with the expectation of Henry Miller and Henry Miller UPRR Connection, which have a low pote

and the Dumbarton (High Bridge) which has a high potential of noise impacts. Medium to hig

impacts for the overall alternative. Medium potential of vibration impacts from San Francisco tpotential of vibration impacts from Dumbarton to San Jose. Medium potential of vibration impGilroy and San Jose to Tracy. The Central Valley has a low potential for vibration impacts. 

Land Use and Planning, Communities and Neighborhoods, Property, and Environmental Justice 

Compatibility: Majority of network alternative is compatible (high rating), given that it is withiadjacent to an existing major rail or highway rights-of-way for most of the alignment. It exhib

where it connects to the UPRR N/S in the Chowchilla area. It exhibits low compatibility where 

transportation right-of-way in the Altamont Pass area. It exhibits a medium to high compatibi

San Francisco Bay, in Fremont along the more narrow Centerville line, in the Shinn area. It hacompatibility in the Lathrop, Manteca, Modesto and Merced areas. Environmental Justice: This network alternative has medium environmental justice impact rat

Corridor between San Francisco and Gilroy and low environmental justice impact rating for the Niles Canyon to the Central Valley. It has a low impact rating between Gilroy and the Central impact rating in the Central Valley except in the Manteca area, where the rating is low. 

Community: This network alternative would not affect community cohesion, given that the mwithin or immediately adjacent to an existing major rail or highway rights-of-way. 

Property: This network alternative has the potential for high property impacts in the Niles Canwhere additional right-of-way would be required. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.2-18 

Pacheco Pass with Altamont Pass (Local Service): San Francisco and San Jose Termini 

Aesthetics and Visual Resources: General impacts and rating. 

Segments visual ratings: (1) Caltrain – San Francisco to Dumbarton =low; (2) Caltrain – Dumb(3) Pacheco =medium: (4) Henry Miller to UPRR =low: (5) UPRR =medium; (6) Tracy Downt(7) Dumbarton High Bridge =medium; and (8) UPRR N/S =low. Overall network alternative ra

Farmlands:ii Ac (ha) potentially 

affected 

Farmland: 1,380.0 ac (558.49 ha) Impact up to 760.4 ac (307.73 ha) of prime farmland. The majority of potential farmland imp

the Tracy, Pacheco, Henry Miller and UPRR (North/South) segments. Overall, this network altLeast Potential Impact (LPI) to farmland within the Pacheco Pass with Altamont (local service) 

Cultural Resources and Paleontological Resources:iii

Potential presence of historical resources in area of potential effect 

There are 198 known cultural resources. This network alternative extends through numerous historic districts in San Francisco. Historic 

dating from the 1900s are within the area of potential effects along with water delivery systemfrom the 1890s, railroad facilities, freeway bridges dating from the 1940s, and residential prop1880s. The area around San Jose has a high density of cultural resources. Archaeological resDumbarton crossing include prehistoric sites associated with burials, and historic sites from ea

activities. Overall, this network alternative was identified as having a high sensitivity for cultu

Hydrology and Water Resources:iv

Potential impacts and associated ac (ha) of floodplains and linear ft (m) of streams within potential impact study areas, ac (ha) lakes/other water bodies within study areas. 

Floodplains: 547.1 ac (221.39 ha) direct/ 3,410.6 ac (1,380.28 ha) indirect Streams: 27,130 linear ft (8,269.2 linear m) direct/ 125,490 linear ft (38,249.22 linear m) indirLakes/Waterbodies: 41.9 ac (16.97 ha) direct/ 164.9 ac (66.72 ha) indirect Of the Pacheco Pass with Altamont Pass (local service) network alternatives, this network altehave the highest impact on lakes and the San Francisco Bay as a result of the Dumbarton crosPotentially affect San Francisco Bay, Guadalupe River, Pajaro River, San Joaquin River, StanislRiver, Merced River, and Chowchilla River as well as the Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct, South Bay AAqueduct among other water resources. Several watercourses would be crossed more than othat would avoid impacts on the floodplain and above ground water resources, and aerial struminimize impact on floodplains and streams, creeks, and channels. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.2-18 

Pacheco Pass with Altamont Pass (Local Service): San Francisco and San Jose Termini 

Biological Resources IncludingWetlands Ac (ha) of wetland, linear ft (m) of non-wetland waters, and number of special-status species within potential impact study areas 

Wetlandsv: 56.1 ac (22.72 ha) direct/ 3,499 ac (1,416.0 ha) indirect 

Non-Wetland Waters: 19,891 linear ft (6,062.9 linear m) Species: 70 special-status plant and 57 special-status wildlife species Of the Pacheco Pass with Altamont Pass (local service) network alternatives, this network altepotential to impact the most area of wetlands and waters. This alternative could potentially rebiological resources in San Francisco Bay as a result of the Dumbarton crossing. Potentially sispecial-status plant and wildlife species, wetlands, and waters. Network alternative would be along existing transportation corridors with some portions in new 

Potentially result in a barrier to the movement of wildlife in areas where it severs wildlife movewith conservation and restoration plans and special management areas, such as the GEA and Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge. The placement of the alignment and stations and use structures would minimize impacts on biological resources. 

Fault Crossings San Bruno (Potentially Active) – At Grade Buried Trace of Unnamed Fault (Potentially Active) – At Grade 

Silver Creek (Potentially Active) – At Grade Calaveras (Active) – At Grade Ortigalita (Active) – At Grade Calaveras (Active) – Tunnel Livermore (Potentially Active) – Above Grade Greenville (Active) – Above Grade Vernalis (Active) – At Grade Buried Trace of Unnamed Fault (Potentially Active) - At Grade Silver Creek (Potentially Active) - At Grade Hayward (Active) - Above Grade Mission (Potentially Active) - At Grade 

Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources:4Number of resources rated high potential direct effects 

There are 35 public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges that are 0–150 ft (4network alternative. Few potential direct impacts are anticipated given that much of the netw

or directly adjacent to existing transportation rights-of-way, and few resources exist in areas walternative is not adjacent to or within this existing right-of-way. Exceptions include the Augu
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

B. OAKLAND AND SAN JOSE TERMINI This network alternative is shown in Figure 7.2-19 and described in Table 7.2-19. The segments used for this represeNiles/I-880 (West Oakland to Niles Junction), Niles/I-880 (Niles Junction to San Jose via I-880), East Bay Connections Dumbarton/Niles XS), UPRR (Niles to Altamont)16, Tracy Downtown (UPRR Connection)17, Pacheco (San Jose to Weste

(Western Valley to BNSF/UPRR), Henry Miller UPRR Connection, UPRR (Central Valley). 

Table 7.2-19 

Pacheco Pass with Altamont (Local Service): Oakland and San Jose Termini 

Physical/Operational Characteristics Network Alternative Description From Oakland to San Jose, this network alternative would use the Niles/I-880 Alignment. Fro

alternative would use the Pacheco and Henry Miller (to the UPRR) Alignment Alternatives and the Central Valley. The UPRR Alignment through Downtown Tracy would be used for the Alta

options considered for this alternative are West Oakland/7th Street, Coliseum/Airport, Union Ci

(Diridon), Gilroy (Caltrain), Merced (Downtown), and Modesto (Downtown). Local HST Station(I-680/Bernal Road), and Tracy (Downtown). 

Length 318.45 mi (512.50 km) Cost (dollars) $16.0 billion Express Travel Times (minutes) Altamont 

Oakland–LA=2:30; SJ–LA=2:26; Oakland–Sac=1:00; SJ–Sac=0:56; Oakland–Fresno=1:11; SJ

Pleasanton–LA=2:13; Tracy–LA=1:59 Pacheco Oakland–LA=2:30; SJ–LA=2:09; Oakland–Sac=1:38; SJ–Sac=1:18; Oakland–Fresno=1:12; SJLA=1:57; Oakland–Gilroy=0:36; SJ–Gilroy=0:15 

Ridership This network alternative would directly serve downtown Oakland and Oakland International Ai

south Santa Clara County, and the Central Valley and would have high ridership and revenue p

for the statewide HST system with this network alternative is forecast to be about 1% less tha

alternative, or at 92.9 million passengers per year by 2030. Revenue is estimated at $3.07 bil

Constructability Portions of this network alternative are aligned in or along existing passenger rail lines and hig

operations on the existing passenger rail service and automobile traffic while constructing grad

elevated sections, and stations would involve major construction issues/challenges. However, 

could be constructed incrementally to minimize impact to existing operations. 

16 Does not include “express tracks” through Pleasanton Station. 17 Does not include “express tracks” through Tracy Downtown Station. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Pacheco Pass with 

Oakla

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.2-19 

Pacheco Pass with Altamont (Local Service): Oakland and San Jose Termini 

O & M Cost (dollars per year) $1,140 million Operational Issues Altamont 

Average Speed Oakland–LA=173.6 mph (280.0 kph); SJ–LA=176.1 mph (284.0 kph); Oakland–Sac=132.1 mp

Sac=135.3 mph (218.3 kph); Oakland–Fresno=152.4 mph (245.8 kph); SJ–Fresno=153.6 mph LA=181.3 mph (292.3 kph); Tracy–LA=183.4 mph (305.7 kph); Oakland–Tracy=116.6 mph (1Tracy=120.7 mph (201.2 kph) Maximum Speed Oakland–LA=210 mph (350 kph); SJ–LA=210 mph (350 kph); Oakland–Sac=198 mph (330 kp

kph); Oakland–Fresno=210 mph (350 kph); SJ–Fresno=210 mph (350 kph); Livermore–LA=2

LA=210 mph (350 kph); Oakland–Tracy=178.2 mph (297 kph); SJ–Tracy=180 mph (300 kph)Using both the Pacheco and Altamont alignment alternatives to serve the Bay Area provides gflexibility, and reliability (in terms of redundancy). In order to serve the additional markets, mbe necessary. HST operations would need to be coordinated and integrated with ACE service. Pacheco Average Speed Oakland–LA=170.7 mph (284.6 kph); SJ–LA=179.5 mph (299.2 kph); Oakland–Sac=163.5 mp

Sac=174 mph (290 kph); Oakland–Fresno=150.5 mph (250.8 kph); SJ–Fresno=164.3 mph (2mph (305.4 kph); Oakland–Gilroy=116 mph (193.3 kph); SJ–Gilroy=114.6 mph (191 kph) Maximum Speed Oakland–LA=210 mph (350 kph); SJ–LA=210 mph (350 kph); Oakland–Sac=210 mph (350 kp

kph); Oakland–Fresno=210_ mph (350 kph); SJ–Fresno=210 mph (350); Gilroy–LA=210 mph Gilroy=180 mph (300 kph); SJ–Gilroy=180 mph (300 kph) 

Potential Environmental Impacts Travel Conditions This network alternative would provide direct service to Oakland with a station in West Oaklan

International Airport with a Coliseum/BART station, to Southern Alameda County with a statio

San Jose at the Diridon Station, to Southern Santa Clara County with a Gilroy Station, and to t

stations at Merced and Modesto. The Altamont Pass would use the UPRR Alignment with locaPleasanton (I-680/Bernal), and downtown Tracy. This network alternative would increase con

to Oakland, the Oakland International Airport (Coliseum/BART), southern Alameda County, SaClara County and Monterey/ Santa Cruz/ Salinas area, the I-580 Corridor and Tri-Valley area, Gilroy station would be the closest HST station for Monterey, Santa Cruz, and San Benito counAlternative would provide a safer, more reliable, energy-efficient intercity mode of travel while reliability, and performance of the regional commuter service. The HST Network Alternative w
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.2-19 

Pacheco Pass with Altamont (Local Service): Oakland and San Jose Termini 

capacity for intercity and commuter travel and reduce existing automobile traffic. The fully gr

corridor between Gilroy and San Jose, Niles/I-880 Alignment between Oakland and Union City 

flow and reduce air pollution at existing rail crossings. There would also be some grade separin the I-580 corridor and UPRR N/S Alignment segments through the Central Valley. This netwprovide direct HST service to San Francisco, SFO and the SF Peninsula/Caltrain Corridor betweJose. 

Noise and Vibration:i High, 

medium, or low potential impacts 

Medium potential of noise impacts for the overall alternative. All segments have a medium pot

with the expectation of Henry Miller and Henry Miller UPRR Connection, which have a low poteMedium to high potential of vibration impacts for the overall alternative. Medium potential of v

Jose to Niles Junction. High potential of vibration impacts from Oakland to Niles Junction. Me

impacts, from San Jose to Gilroy and Niles Junction to Tracy. The Central Valley has a low poimpacts. 

Land Use and Planning, Communities and Neighborhoods, Property, and Environmental Justice 

Compatibility: Majority of network alternative is compatible (high rating), given that it is withito an existing major rail or highway rights-of-way for most of the alignment. It exhibits low co

connects to the UPRR N/S in the Chowchilla area. It exhibits low compatibility where it does nright-of-way in the Altamont Pass area. It has a medium compatibility in the Lathrop, Mantec

areas. Environmental Justice: This network alternative has medium environmental justice impact ratBetween Oakland and San Jose, for the Caltrain Corridor between San Jose and Gilroy, and a 

Gilroy and the Central Valley. It exhibits a low environmental justice impact rating for the UPRCanyon to the Central Valley, and a medium impact rating in the Central Valley, except in the 

rating is low. Community: This network alternative would not affect community cohesion, given that the mwithin or immediately adjacent to an existing major rail or highway rights-of-way. Property: This network alternative has the potential for high property impacts in the Niles Canwhere additional right-of-way would be required. 

Aesthetics and Visual Resources: General impacts and rating. 

Segments visual ratings: (1) Oakland to Niles Junction =low; (2) Niles Junction to San Jose =m

=medium; (4) Henry Miller to UPRR =low; (5) UPRR =medium; (6) Tracy Downtown =low; aOverall network alternative rating is low to medium. 

Farmlands:ii Ac (ha) potentially 

affected 

Farmland: 1,384.1 ac (560.14 ha) Impact up to 764.5 ac (309.39 ha) of prime farmland. The majority of potential farmland imp

Tracy, Pacheco, Henry Miller and UPRR (North/South) segments. Overall, this network alternaFrancisco, Oakland, and San Jose Termini (without Dumbarton Bridge), and San Jose Termini the greatest potential impact on farmland within the Pacheco Pass with Altamont (local service

The difference in overall farmland impacts within the Pacheco Pass with Altamont (local servicabout 4 ac (1.62 ha). 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.2-19 

Pacheco Pass with Altamont (Local Service): Oakland and San Jose Termini 

Cultural Resources and Paleontological Resources:iii

Potential presence of historical resources in area of potential effect 

There are 133 known cultural resources. Historic properties and industrial complexes dating from the 1920s and 1940s are within the aalong with water delivery systems and canals dating from the 1890s, freeway bridges dating fresidential properties dating from the 1880s. Overall, this network alternative was identified asensitivity for cultural resources. 

Hydrology and Water Resources:iv

Potential impacts and associated ac (ha) of floodplains and linear ft (m) of streams within potential impact study areas, ac (ha) lakes/other water bodies within study areas. 

Floodplains: 456.4 ac (184.7 ha) direct/ 1,633.2 ac (660.96 ha) indirect Streams: 27,666 linear ft (8,432.5 linear m) direct/ 132,501 linear ft (40,386.4 linear m) indireLakes/Waterbodies: 5.3 ac (2.14 ha) direct/ 18.92 ac (7.66 ha) indirect Potentially affect Guadalupe River, Pajaro River, San Joaquin River, Stanislaus River, Tuolumn

Chowchilla River as well as the Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct, South Bay Aqueduct, and California Aresources. Several watercourses would be crossed more than once. Includes tunnels that wofloodplain and above ground water resources, and aerial structures that would minimize impac

streams, creeks, and channels. 

Biological Resources IncludingWetlands Ac (ha) of wetland, linear ft (m) of non-wetland waters, and number of special-status species within potential impact study areas 

Wetlandsv: 25.3 ac (10.23 ha) direct/ 2,180 ac (882.4 ha) indirect 

Non-Wetland Waters: 17,977 linear ft (5,479.3 linear m) Species: 67 special-status plant and 51 special-status wildlife species Potentially significant impacts on special-status plant and wildlife species, wetlands, and waterNetwork alternative would be along existing transportation corridors with some portions in new result in a barrier to the movement of wildlife in areas where it severs wildlife movement corriwith conservation and restoration plans and special management areas, such as the GEA. The alignment and stations and use of tunnels and aerial structures would minimize impacts on bio

Fault Crossings Hayward (Active) – At Grade - Adjacent and Parallel Hayward (Active) – At Grade 

Silver Creek (Potentially Active) – Above Grade Silver Creek (Potentially Active) – At Grade Calaveras (Active) – At Grade Ortigalita (Active) – At Grade Calaveras (Active) – Tunnel Livermore (Potentially Active) – Above Grade Greenville (Active) – Above Grade Vernalis (Active) – At Grade 

Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources:4Number of resources rated high potential direct effects 

There are 36 public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges that are 0–150 ft (4network alternative. Few potential direct impacts are anticipated given that much of the netwdirectly adjacent to existing transportation rights-of-way, and few resources exist in areas whe

is not adjacent to or within this existing right-of-way. Exceptions include the Augustin-Bernal 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

C. SAN FRANCISCO, OAKLAND, AND SAN JOSE TERMINI (WITHOUT DUMBARTON BRIDGE) 

This network alternative is shown in Figure 7.2-20 and described in Table 7.2-20. The segments used for this represeCaltrain (SF – Dumbarton), Caltrain (Dumbarton – San Jose), Niles/I-880 (West Oakland to Niles Junction), Niles/I-880 

Jose via I-880), East Bay Connections (Dumbarton/Niles XN & Dumbarton/Niles XS), UPRR (Niles to Altamont)18, Tracy 

Connection)19, Pacheco (San Jose to Western Valley), Henry Miller (Western Valley to BNSF/UPRR), Henry Miller UPRR 

(Central Valley). 

Table 7.2-20 

Pacheco Pass with Altamont Pass (Local Service): SF, Oak, and SJ Termini (without Dumbarton Brid

Physical/Operational Characteristics Network Alternative Description From Oakland to San Jose, this network alternative would use the Niles/I-880 Alignment. Fro

Jose, this network alternative would use the existing Caltrain right-of-way. From San Jose, thwould use the Pacheco and Henry Miller (to the UPRR) Alignment Alternatives and the UPRR NCentral Valley. The UPRR Alignment through Downtown Tracy would be used for the Altamo

options considered for this alternative are West Oakland/7th Street, Coliseum/Airport, Union Ci

Transit Center, Millbrae/SFO, Palo Alto (Caltrain), San Jose (Diridon), Gilroy (Caltrain), Merced Modesto (Downtown). Local HST Stations would be at Pleasanton (I-680/Bernal Road), and T

Length 360.90 mi (580.81 km) Cost (dollars) $20.4 billion Express Travel Times (minutes)20 Altamont 

SF–LA=3:26; Oakland–LA=2:30; SJ–LA=2:26; SF–Sac=1:48; Oakland–Sac=1:00; SJ–Sac=0:5

Oakland–Fresno=1:11; SJ–Fresno=1:08 ; Pleasanton–LA=2:13; Tracy–LA=1:59; SF–Tracy=1:Tracy=0:36; SJ–Tracy=0:27 Pacheco SF–LA=2:38; Oakland–LA=2:30; SJ–LA=2:09;SF–Sac=1:47; Oakland–Sac=1:38; SJ–Sac=1:18Oakland–Fresno=1:12; SJ–Fresno=0:51; Gilroy–LA=1:57; SF–Gilroy=0:44; Oakland–Gilroy=0

18 Does not include “express tracks” through Pleasanton Station. 19 Does not include “express tracks” through Tracy Downtown Station. 

20 The travel times for any train traveling to or from San Francisco for this alternative must include a turn around time of no less than 20 minutes at the 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Pacheco Pass with 

San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose Termini (wit

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.2-20 

Pacheco Pass with Altamont Pass (Local Service): SF, Oak, and SJ Termini (without Dumbarton Brid

Ridership This network alternative would directly serve downtown Oakland and Oakland International Ai

Francisco, the San Francisco International Airport, the Peninsula, San Jose, south Santa Clara Valley. Total ridership for the statewide HST system with this network alternative is forecast tthan the Pacheco “Base Case” alternative, or at 87.8 million passengers per year by 2030. Re$2.9 billion per year by 2030. Although this option serves additional markets than the Pachecthe drop in system ridership is a result of the splitting of service between the San Francisco PeSan Jose. Additional frequency of service (along with higher operational costs) would be need

for this network alternative. 

Constructability Portions of this network alternative are aligned in or along existing passenger rail lines and hig

operations on the existing passenger rail service and automobile traffic while constructing grad

elevated sections, and stations would involve major construction issues/challenges. However, 

could be constructed incrementally to minimize impact to existing operations. 

O & M Cost (dollars per year) $1,179 million Operational Issues Altamont 

Average Speed SF–LA=138.6 mph (223.6 kph); Oakland–LA=173.6 mph (280.0 kph); SJ–LA=176.0 mph (284

mph (155.6 kph); Oakland–Sac=132.1 mph (213.0 kph); SJ–Sac=_135.3 mph (218.3 kph); SF

(194.1 kph); Oakland–Fresno=152.4 mph (245.8 kph); SJ–Fresno=153.6 mph (247.8 kph); Pl

(292.3 kph); Tracy–LA=183.4 mph (305.7 kph); SF–Tracy=62.4 mph (100.6 kph); Oakland–Tkph); SJ–Tracy=115.7 mph (186.7 kph) Maximum Speed SF–LA=210 mph (350 kph); Oakland–LA=210 mph (350 kph); SJ–LA=210 mph (350 kph); SFkph); Oakland–Sac=198 mph (330 kph); SJ–Sac=198 mph (330 kph); SF–Fresno=210 mph (3Fresno=210 mph (350kph); SJ–Fresno=210 mph (350 kph); Livermore–LA=210 mph (350 kp350 kph); SF–Tracy=178.2 mph (297 kph); Oakland–Tracy=178.2 mph (297 kph); SJ–Tracy=Pacheco Average Speed SF–LA=164.2 mph (273.6 kph); Oakland–LA=170.7 mph (284.6 kph); SJ–LA=179.5mph (299

mph (254.7 kph); Oakland–Sac=163.5 mph (272.6 kph); SJ–Sac=174 mph 290 kph); SF–Freskph); Oakland–Fresno=150.5 mph (250.8 kph); SJ–Fresno=164.3 mph (273.8 kph); Gilroy–LAkph); SF–Gilroy=102.3 mph (170.6 kph); Oakland–Gilroy=116 mph (193.3 kph); SJ–Gilroy=11Maximum Speed SF–LA=210 mph (350 kph); Oakland–LA=210 mph (350 kph); SJ–LA=210 mph (350 kph); SFkph); Oakland–Sac=210 mph (350 kph); SJ–Sac=210 mph (350 kph); SF–Fresno=210 mph (3

Fresno=210 mph (350 kph); SJ–Fresno=210 mph (350 kph); Gilroy–LA=210 mph (350_ kph); (300 kph); Oakland–Gilroy=180 mph (300 kph); SJ–Gilroy=180 mph (300 kph) 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.2-20 

Pacheco Pass with Altamont Pass (Local Service): SF, Oak, and SJ Termini (without Dumbarton Brid

HST operations would need to be coordinated and integrated with Caltrain service and ACE se

Pacheco and Altamont alignment alternatives to serve the Bay Area provides greater capacityreliability (in terms of redundancy). In order to serve the additional markets, more train opera

necessary. 

Potential Environmental Impacts Travel Conditions The Caltrain corridor Alignment would bring direct HST service up the San Francisco Peninsula 

San Francisco with potential stations in downtown San Francisco, at SFO (Millbrae), a mid-PenAlto, and a San Jose Station (Diridon). HST service would be provided to Southern Santa ClarStation, with service to the Central Valley at Merced and Modesto. The network alternative wo

service to Oakland with a station in West Oakland, to the Oakland International Airport with a 

and to a Union City (BART) Station. The Altamont Pass would use the UPRR Alignment with loPleasanton (I-680/Bernal), and downtown Tracy. This network alternative would increase conto San Francisco, the Peninsula and SFO, the hub international airport for northern California, International Airport (Coliseum/BART), southern Alameda County, San Jose, Southern Santa CMonterey/ Santa Cruz/ Salinas area, the I-580 Corridor and Tri-Valley area, and the Central Va

would be the closest HST station for Monterey, Santa Cruz, and San Benito counties. The HST would provide a safer, more reliable, energy-efficient intercity mode along the East Bay while 

reliability, and performance of the regional commuter service. particularly along the Altamont HST Network Alternative would greatly increase the capacity for intercity and commuter traveautomobile traffic. The fully grade-separated Caltrain corridor north of Gilroy, Niles/I-880 Aligand Union City would improve local traffic flow and reduce air pollution at existing rail crossing

some grade separation benefits in the UPRR in the I-580 corridor and UPRR N/S Alignment seCentral Valley. 

Noise and Vibration:i High, 

medium, or low potential impacts 

Medium potential of noise impacts for the overall alternative. All segments have a medium pot

with the expectation of Henry Miller and Henry Miller UPRR Connection, which have a low poteMedium to high potential of vibration impacts for the overall alternative. Medium potential of vSan Francisco to Dumbarton. High potential of vibration impacts from Dumbarton to San Josevibration impacts from San Jose to Niles Junction. High potential of vibration impacts from OaMedium potential of vibration impacts, from San Jose to Gilroy and Niles Junction to Tracy. Thlow potential for vibration impacts. 

Land Use and Planning, Communities and Neighborhoods, Property, and Environmental Justice 

Compatibility: Majority of network alternative is compatible (high rating), given that it is withiadjacent to an existing major rail or highway rights-of-way for most of the alignment. It exhib

where it connects to the UPRR N/S in the Chowchilla area. It exhibits low compatibility where 

transportation right-of-way in the Altamont Pass area. It has a medium compatibility in the LaModesto and Merced areas. Environmental Justice: This network alternative has medium environmental justice impact ratBetween Oakland and San Jose and for the Caltrain Corridor between San Francisco and Gilroy
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.2-20 

Pacheco Pass with Altamont Pass (Local Service): SF, Oak, and SJ Termini (without Dumbarton Brid

rating between Gilroy and the Central Valley. It exhibits a low environmental justice impact raalignment from Niles Canyon to the Central Valley, and a medium impact rating in the Central Manteca area, where the rating is low. Community: This network alternative would not affect community cohesion, given that the mwithin or immediately adjacent to an existing major rail or highway rights-of-way. Property: This network alternative has the potential for high property impacts in the Niles Canwhere additional right-of-way would be required. 

Aesthetics and Visual Resources: General impacts and rating. 

Segments visual ratings: (1) Caltrain – San Francisco to Dumbarton =low; (2) Caltrain – Dum(3) Oakland to Niles Junction =low; (4) Niles Junction to San Jose =medium; (5) Pacheco =mto UPRR =low; (7) UPRR =medium; (8) Tracy Downtown =low; and (9) UPRR N/S =low. Ov

rating is low to medium. 

Farmlands:ii Ac (ha) potentially 

affected 

Farmland: 1,384.1 ac (560.14 ha) Impact up to 764.5 ac (309.39 ha) of prime farmland. The majority of potential farmland imp

the Tracy, Pacheco, Henry Miller and UPRR (North/South) segments. Overall, this network alt

Oakland and San Jose Termini and San Jose Termini alternatives would have the greatest pote

within the Pacheco Pass with Altamont (local service) network alternatives. 

Cultural Resources and Paleontological Resources:iii

Potential presence of historical resources in area of potential effect 

There are 222 known cultural resources. Of the Pacheco Pass with Altamont (local service) network alternatives, this network alternativthe highest number of known resources. This network alternative extends through numerous historic districts in San Francisco. Historic 

dating from the 1900s are within the area of potential effects along with industrial complexes 1940s, water delivery systems and canals dating from the 1890s, railroad facilities, freeway br1940s, and residential properties dating from the 1880s. Overall, this network alternative was 

high sensitivity for cultural resources. 

Hydrology and Water Resources:iv

Potential impacts and associated ac (ha) of floodplains and linear ft (m) of streams within potential impact study areas, ac (ha) lakes/other water bodies within study areas. 

Floodplains: 552.2 ac (223.49 ha) direct/ 1,685.1 ac (691.98 ha) indirect Streams: 30,278 linear ft (9,228.9 linear m) direct/ 137,768 linear ft (41,191.56 linear m) indirLakes/Waterbodies: 5.3 ac (2.14 ha) direct/ 22.3 ac (9.02 ha) indirect Of the Pacheco Pass with Altamont Pass (local service) network alternatives, this network altehave the highest impact on waters including streams, rivers, and canals as well as floodplains, impaired waters. This network alternative was also identified as having the potential to encousoils. Potentially affect Guadalupe River, Pajaro River, San Joaquin River, Stanislaus River, Tuolumnand Chowchilla River as well as the Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct, South Bay Aqueduct, and Californother water resources. Several watercourses would be crossed more than once. Includes tunimpacts on the floodplain and above ground water resources, and aerial structures that would 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.2-20 

Pacheco Pass with Altamont Pass (Local Service): SF, Oak, and SJ Termini (without Dumbarton Brid

floodplains and streams, creeks, and channels.. 

Biological Resources IncludingWetlands Ac (ha) of wetland, linear ft (m) of non-wetland waters, and number of special-status species within potential impact study areas 

Wetlandsv: 25.4 ac (10.26 ha) direct/ 2,332 ac (943.9 ha) indirect 

Non-Wetland Waters: 18,556 linear ft (5,659.1 linear m) Species: 71 special-status plant and 58 special-status wildlife species Of the Pacheco Pass with Altamont Pass (local service) network alternatives, this network altepotential to impact the most special-status plant and wildlife species. Potentially significant implant and wildlife species, wetlands, and waters. Network alternative would be along existing transportation corridors with some portions in new 

Potentially result in a barrier to the movement of wildlife in areas where it severs wildlife movewith conservation and restoration plans and special management areas, such as the GEA. The alignment and stations and use of tunnels and aerial structures would minimize impacts on bio

Fault Crossings San Bruno (Potentially Active) – At Grade Buried Trace of Unnamed Fault (Potentially Active) – At Grade 

Hayward (Active) – At Grade - Adjacent and Parallel Hayward (Active) – At Grade Silver Creek (Potentially Active) – Above Grade Silver Creek (Potentially Active) – At Grade Calaveras (Active) – At Grade Ortigalita (Active) – At Grade Calaveras (Active) – Tunnel Livermore (Potentially Active) – Above Grade Greenville (Active) – Above Grade Vernalis (Active) – At Grade 

Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources:4Number of resources rated high potential direct effects 

There are 46 public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges that are 0–150 ft (4network alternative. Few potential direct impacts are anticipated given that much of the netw

or directly adjacent to existing transportation rights-of-way, and few resources exist in areas walternative is not adjacent to or within this existing right-of-way. Exceptions include the Augu
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

D. SAN JOSE TERMINUS This network alternative is shown in Figure 7.2-21 and described in Table 7.2-21. The segments used for this represeNiles/I-880 (Niles Junction to San Jose via I-880)21, East Bay Connection (Dumbarton/Niles XS), UPRR (Niles to Altamo

(UPRR Connection)23, Pacheco (San Jose to Western Valley), Henry Miller (Western Valley to BNSF/UPRR), Henry Mille

UPRR (Central Valley). 

Table 7.2-21 

Pacheco Pass with Altamont Pass (Local Service): San Jose Terminus 

Physical/Operational Characteristics Network Alternative Description From San Jose, this network alternative would use the Pacheco and Henry Miller (to the UPRR

and the UPRR N/S Alignment in the Central Valley. The Altamont Pass would use the UPRR Alidowntown Tracy. Station location options considered for this alternative are San Jose (Diridon

Merced (Downtown), and Modesto (Downtown). Local HST stations would be at Warm Spring

680/Bernal), and downtown Tracy. 

Length 286.04 mi (460.34 km) Cost (dollars) $13.5 billion Express Travel Times (minutes) Altamont 

SJ–LA=2:26; SJ–Sac=0:56; SJ–Fresno=1:08; Pleasanton–LA=2:13; Tracy–LA=1:59; SJ–TracyPacheco SJ–LA=2:09; SJ–Sac=1:18; SJ–Fresno=0:51; Gilroy–LA=1:57; SJ–Gilroy=0:15 

Ridership This network alternative would directly serve downtown San Jose, Southern Santa Clara Coun

Valley. Total ridership for the statewide HST system with this network alternative is forecast tthan the Pacheco “Base Case” alternative, or at 89.8 million passengers per year by 2030. Re

$2.96 billion per year by 2030. 

Constructability Portions of this network alternative are aligned in or along existing passenger rail lines and hig

operations on the existing passenger rail service and automobile traffic while constructing grad

elevated sections, and stations would involve major construction issues/challenges. However, 

could be constructed incrementally to minimize impact to existing operations. 

O & M Cost (dollars per year) $1,130 million 21 Does not include Niles Junction to Niles Wye S (“Niles/I-880 5A”) segment. 22 Does not include “express tracks” through Pleasanton Station. 23 Does not include “express tracks” through Tracy Downtown Station. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.2-21 

Pacheco Pass with Altamont Pass (Local Service): San Jose Terminus 

Operational Issues Altamont 

Average Speed SJ–LA=176.0 mph (284.0 kph); SJ–Sac=135.3_ mph (218.3 kph); SJ–Fresno=153.6 mph (247LA=181.3 mph (292.3 kph); Tracy–LA=183.4 mph (305.7 kph); SJ–Tracy=115.7 mph (186.7 Maximum Speed SJ–LA=210 mph (350 kph); SJ–Sac=198 mph (330 kph); SJ–Fresno=210 mph (350 kph); Live

(350 kph); Tracy–LA=210 mph (350 kph); SJ–Tracy=180 mph (300 kph) Pacheco Average Speed SJ–LA=179.5 mph (299.2 kph); SJ–Sac=174 mph (290 kph); SJ–Fresno=164.3 mph (273.8 kpmph (305.4 kph); SJ–Gilroy=114.6 mph (191 kph) Maximum Speed SJ–LA=210 mph (350 kph); SJ–Sac=210_ mph (350 kph); SJ–Fresno=210 mph (350 kph); Gikph); SJ–Gilroy=180mph (300 kph) Using both the Pacheco and Altamont alignment alternatives to serve the Bay Area provides goperating flexibility, and reliability (in terms of redundancy). In order to serve the additional moperations would be necessary. HST operations would need to be coordinated and integrated between San Jose and Gilroy, ACE service and all transportation services at San Jose. 

Potential Environmental Impacts Travel Conditions This network alternative would provide direct HST service to San Jose (Diridon), Southern San

station in Gilroy, and the Central Valley with Stations in Merced and Modesto. This network al

connectivity and accessibility to southern Alameda County, San Jose, Southern Santa Clara Co

Santa Cruz/ Salinas area, the I-580 Corridor and Tri-Valley area, and the Central Valley. The G

the closest HST station for Monterey, Santa Cruz, and San Benito counties. The HST Network 

provide a safer, more reliable, energy-efficient intercity mode in Santa Clara County and the Cimproving the safety, reliability, and performance of the regional commuter service. The HST 

would greatly increase the capacity for intercity and commuter travel and reduce existing autograde-separated Caltrain corridor between Gilroy and San Jose would improve local traffic flow 

at existing rail crossings. There would also be grade separation benefits in the UPRR in the I-N/S Alignment through the Central Valley. This network alternative would not provide direct H

Francisco, SFO, the SF Peninsula/Caltrain Corridor between San Francisco and San Jose, Oakla
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Pacheco Pass with 

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.2-21 

Pacheco Pass with Altamont Pass (Local Service): San Jose Terminus 

Noise and Vibration:i High, 

medium, or low potential impacts 

Medium potential of noise impacts for the overall alternative. All segments have a medium pot

with the expectation of Henry Miller and Henry Miller UPRR Connection, which have a low poteMedium to high potential of vibration impacts for the overall alternative. Medium potential of vSan Jose to Tracy and from San Jose to Gilroy. The Central Valley has a low potential for vibr

Land Use and Planning, Communities and Neighborhoods, Property, and Environmental Justice 

Compatibility: Majority of network alternative is compatible (high rating), given that it is withiadjacent to an existing major rail or highway rights-of-way for most of the alignment. It exhib

where it connects to the UPRR N/S in the Chowchilla area. It exhibits low compatibility where 

transportation right-of-way in the Altamont Pass area. It has a medium compatibility in the La

Modesto and Merced areas. Environmental Justice: This network alternative has medium environmental justice impact ratBetween Niles Junction and San Jose and for the Caltrain Corridor between San Francisco and 

impact rating between Gilroy and the Central Valley. It exhibits a low environmental justice imalignment from Niles Canyon to the Central Valley, and a medium impact rating in the Central Manteca area, where the rating is low. Community: This network alternative would not affect community cohesion, given that the m

within or immediately adjacent to an existing major rail or highway rights-of-way. 

Property: This network alternative has the potential for high property impacts in the Niles Canwhere additional right-of-way would be required. 

Aesthetics and Visual Resources: General impacts and rating. 

Segments visual ratings: (1) Niles Junction to San Jose =medium; (2) Pacheco =medium; (3) 

=low; (4) UPRR =medium; (5) Tracy Downtown =low; and (6) UPRR N/S =low. Overall netw

low to medium. 

Farmlands:ii Ac (ha) potentially 

affected 

Farmland: 1,384.1 ac (560.14 ha) Impact up to 764.5 ac (309.39 ha) of prime farmland. The majority of potential farmland imp

the Tracy, Pacheco, Henry Miller and UPRR (North/South) segments. Overall, this network alt

Oakland and San Jose Termini and San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose Termini (without Dualternatives would have the greatest potential impact on farmland within the Pacheco Pass witservice) network alternatives. 

Cultural Resources and Paleontological Resources:iii

Potential presence of historical resources in area of potential effect 

 There are 109 known cultural resources. Of the Pacheco Pass with Altamont (local service) network alternatives, this network alternativthe least number of known resources. Historic properties and buildings dating from the 1920s are within the area of potential effects delivery systems and canals dating from the 1890s, freeway bridges dating from the 1940s, andating from the 1890s. Overall, this network alternative was identified as having a low sensitiresources. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.2-21 

Pacheco Pass with Altamont Pass (Local Service): San Jose Terminus 

Hydrology and Water Resources:iv

Potential impacts and associated ac (ha) of floodplains and linear ft (m) of streams within potential impact study areas, ac (ha) lakes/other water bodies within study areas. 

Floodplains: 432.2 ac (174.91 ha) direct/ 1,479.1 ac (598.58 ha) indirect Streams: 24,197 linear ft (7,375.2 linear m) direct/ 120,049 linear ft (36,591 linear m) indirect Lakes/Waterbodies: 4.6 ac (1.87 ha) direct/ 17.6 ac (7.13 ha) indirect Of the Pacheco Pass with Altamont Pass (local service) network alternatives, this network altehave the least impact on water resources. Potentially affect Guadalupe River, Pajaro River, San Joaquin River, Stanislaus River, Tuolumnand Chowchilla River as well as the Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct, South Bay Aqueduct, and Californother water resources. Several watercourses would be crossed more than once. Includes tunimpacts on the floodplain and above ground water resources, and aerial structures that would floodplains and streams, creeks, and channels. 

Biological Resources IncludingWetlands Ac (ha) of wetland, linear ft (m) of non-wetland waters, and number of special-status species within potential impact study areas 

Wetlandsv: 23.7 ac (9.58 ha) direct/ 1,972 ac (798.0 ha) indirect 

Non-Wetland Waters: 17,521 linear ft (5,340.5 linear m) Species: 54 special-status plant and 50 special-status wildlife species Of the Pacheco Pass with Altamont Pass (local service) network alternatives, this network altepotential to impact the least special-status plant and wildlife species, wetlands, and waters. Pimpacts on special-status plant and wildlife species, wetlands, and waters. Network alternative would be along existing transportation corridors with some portions in new 

Potentially result in a barrier to the movement of wildlife in areas where it severs wildlife movewith conservation and restoration plans and special management areas, such as the GEA. The alignment and stations and use of tunnels and aerial structures would minimize impacts on bio

Fault Crossings Hayward (Active) – At Grade Silver Creek (Potentially Active) – Above Grade 

Silver Creek (Potentially Active) – At Grade Calaveras (Active) – At Grade Ortigalita (Active) – At Grade Calaveras (Active) – Tunnel Livermore (Potentially Active) – Above Grade Greenville (Active) – Above Grade Vernalis (Active) – At Grade 

Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources:4Number of resources rated high potential direct effects 

There are 27 public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges that are 0–150 ft (4network alternative. Few potential direct impacts are anticipated given that much of the netw

or directly adjacent to existing transportation rights-of-way, and few resources exist in areas walternative is not adjacent to or within this existing right-of-way. Exceptions include the Augu
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

7.3 Alignment Alternatives 

The HST Alignment Alternatives are general locations for HST tracks, structures, and systems for the HST system between 

study corridors; they are generally configured along or adjacent to existing rail transportation facilities. These HST Alignmedescribed in Chapter 2, analyzed in Chapter 3, and compared and used to create the HST Networks Alternatives. To facilitate the alignment alternative analysis, the study area was divided into six corridors within the study region: • San Francisco to San Jose. 

• Oakland to San Jose. • San Jose to Central Valley. • East Bay to Central Valley. 

• San Francisco Bay Crossings. • Central Valley Alignment. These corridors connect different parts of the study region and are fundamentally different and distinct in terms of land us

construction configuration (mix of at-grade, aerial structure, and tunnel sections). The HST Alignment Alternatives and sta

considered in each corridor of the study region are discussed below. The analyses in Chapter 3 under Affected Environme

Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies compile and report information about the affected environment and environmenta

each alignment alternative and segment as outlined in the tables. The purpose of this chapter is to summarize and compaoperational characteristics and potential environmental consequences associated with the HST Network Alternatives and foalignment alternatives within the six corridors. The HST Alignment Alternatives and station location options are described 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

A. CALTRAIN (SAN FRANCISCO TO DUMBARTON) This alignment alternative is shown in Figure 7.3-1 and described in Table 7.3-1. 

Table 7.3-1 

Caltrain: San Francisco to Dumbarton 

Physical/Operational Characteristics Alignment Alternative Description From San Francisco to Dumbarton, this alignment would use the existing Caltrain rail right-of-w

options considered for this alternative are Transbay Transit Center or 4th and King, Millbrae/SF

(Caltrain). 

Length 27.70 mi (44.58 km) Cost (dollars) $3.08 billion Express Travel Times 20 minutes SF–Dumbarton (Transbay to Redwood City Station) Ridership This alignment would directly serve downtown San Francisco and San Francisco International Constructability Maintaining operations on the existing commuter rail service while constructing grade separat

sections, and stations would involve major construction issues/challenges. However, the infra

could be constructed incrementally. 

Operational Issues Average speed =76.6 mph (127.5 kph) 

Maximum speed =120 mph (200 kph) HST operations would need to be coordinated and integrated with Caltrain service. 

Potential Environmental Impacts Travel Conditions The Caltrain corridor alignment alternative would bring direct HST service up the San Francisc

Redwood City to downtown San Francisco with potential stations in downtown San Francisco, mid-Peninsula station at Redwood City. This alignment alternative would increase connectivity 

Francisco, the Peninsula, and SFO, the hub international airport for northern California. This awould provide a safer, more reliable, energy-efficient intercity mode along the San Francisco Pthe safety, reliability, and performance of the regional commuter service. It would also greatlfor intercity and commuter travel and reduce existing automobile traffic. The fully grade-sepanorth of Redwood City would improve local traffic flow and reduce air pollution at existing rail 

Noise and Vibration:i High, 

medium, or low potential impacts 

Medium potential of noise impacts and medium potential of vibration impacts. Dense urban a

uses. There would be an increase in noise levels due to increased frequency of trains. There would 

levels due to the elimination of horn noise and gate noise from existing services as a result of existing grade crossings. 

Land Use and Planning, Communities and Neighborhoods, 

Compatibility: The majority of this alignment alternative is compatible (high rating), given tha
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

HST Al

Caltrain (San Fran

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.3-1 

Caltrain: San Francisco to Dumbarton 

Property, and Environmental Justice 

immediately adjacent to an existing major rail or highway rights-of-way. Environmental Justice: This alignment alternative has medium environmental justice impact r

Corridor north of Dumbarton. Community: This alignment alternative would not affect community cohesion, given that it is adjacent to an existing major rail or highway rights-of-way. Property: This alignment alternative has the potential for high property impacts in the 4th and 

segment. 

Aesthetics and Visual Resources: General impacts and rating. 

Includes two additional tracks, pedestrian overcrossings and undercrossing at stations, and a way. Overall low visual impact 

Cultural Resources and Paleontological Resources:iii

Potential presence of historical resources in area of potential effect 

There are 51 known cultural resources. The alignment alternative extends through numerous historic districts between Transbay TermThe alignment alternative also includes a number of historic buildings and archaeological reso

Hydrology and Water Resources:iv

Potential impacts and associated ac (ha) of floodplains and linear ft (m) of streams within potential impact study areas, ac (ha) lakes/other water bodies within study areas. 

Floodplains: 49.3 ac (19.95 ha) direct/ 101.2 ac (40.96 ha) indirect 

Streams: 1,178 linear ft (359.1 linear m) direct/ 6,617 linear ft (797.7 linear m) indirect Lakes/Waterbodies5: 0.0 ac (0.0 ha) direct/ 3.4 ac (1.38 ha) indirect 

Potentially affect at least 16 named and unnamed water resources, including Oyster Point ChaChannel, San Bruno Canal, Colma Creek, Mills Creek, San Mateo Creek, and Pulgas Creek. 

Biological Resources IncludingWetlands Ac (ha) of wetland, linear ft (m) of non-wetland waters, and number of special-status species within potential impact study areas 

Wetlandsv: 0.08 ac (0.032 ha) direct/ 147.9 ac (59.85 ha) indirect 

Non-Wetland Waters: 590 linear ft (179.8 linear m) Species: 19 special-status plant and 29 special-status wildlife species This alignment alternative would have potential to directly and indirectly impact wetlands and Alignment alternative would have the potential to impact both special-status plant and wildlife species impacts include San Mateo thorn-mint, Contra Costa goldfields, California clapper rail, Potentially result in a barrier to wildlife movement. Placement along transportation corridors w

Fault Crossings San Bruno (Potentially Active) – At Grade Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources:4Number of resources rated high potential direct effects 

Public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges within 0–150 ft (46 m) from centalternative include (1) Herman Street Park. (2) Washington Park, (3) Trinta Park, and (4) San Fairgrounds. Few potential direct impacts are anticipated given that much of the alignment aldirectly adjacent to existing transportation rights-of-way. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

B. CALTRAIN (DUMBARTON TO SAN JOSE) This alignment alternative is shown in Figure 7.3-2 and described in Table 7.3-2. 

Table 7.3-2 

Caltrain: Dumbarton to San Jose 

Physical/Operational Characteristics Alignment Alternative Description From Dumbarton to San Jose, this alignment alternative would use the existing Caltrain rail rig

location options considered for this alternative are Palo Alto (Caltrain), and San Jose (Diridon)

Length 21.38 mi (34.40 km) Cost (dollars) $1.61 billion Express Travel Times 13.5 minutes Dumbarton–San Jose (Redwood City–San Jose) Ridership This alignment alternative would provide direct HST service on the SF Peninsula/Caltrain Corri

and Redwood City. 

Constructability Maintaining operations on the existing commuter rail service while constructing grade separat

sections, and stations would involve major construction issues/challenges. However, the infracould be constructed incrementally. 

Operational Issues Average speed =92 mph (153.3 kph) 

Maximum speed =120 mph (200 kph) HST operations would need to be coordinated and integrated with Caltrain service. 

Potential Environmental Impacts Travel Conditions The Caltrain corridor alignment alternative would bring direct HST service to the Southern Pen

stations in Palo Alto, and a Station in downtown San Jose (Diridon). This alignment alternativ

connectivity and accessibility to San Jose and the Peninsula. The HST system would provide a energy-efficient intercity mode along the Peninsula while improving the safety, reliability, and 

regional commuter service. This alignment alternative would greatly increase the capacity for travel and reduce existing automobile traffic. The fully grade-separated Caltrain corridor south 

improve local traffic flow and reduce air pollution at existing rail crossings. 

Noise and Vibration:i High, 

medium, or low potential impacts 

Medium potential of noise impacts. High potential of vibration impacts. Dense urban area sur

There would be an increase in noise levels due to increased frequency of trains. There would levels due to the elimination of horn noise and gate noise from existing services as a result of existing grade crossings. 

Land Use and Planning, Communities and Neighborhoods, Property, and Environmental Justice 

Compatibility: The majority of this alignment alternative is compatible (high rating), given tha

immediately adjacent to an existing major rail or highway rights-of-way. 

Environmental Justice: This alignment alternative has medium environmental justice impact r
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

HST Al

Caltrain (Du

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.3-2 

Caltrain: Dumbarton to San Jose 

Corridor south of Dumbarton to San Jose. Community: This alignment alternative would not affect community cohesion, given that it is adjacent to an existing major rail or highway rights-of-way. Property: This alignment alternative has the potential for low property impacts. 

Aesthetics and Visual Resources: General impacts and rating. 

Includes two additional tracks, pedestrian overcrossings and undercrossings at stations, a raisa new two-track bridge next to historic San Francisquito Creek truss bridge, and elevated facil

Jose station. Overall low visual impact 

Cultural Resources and Paleontological Resources:iii

Potential presence of historical resources in area of potential effect 

There are 34 known cultural resources. The area around San Jose has a high density of cultural resources. The Santa Clara de Asis Mincludes both prehistoric and historic resources. 

Hydrology and Water Resources:iv

Potential impacts and associated ac (ha) of floodplains and linear ft (m) of streams within potential impact study areas, ac (ha) lakes/other water bodies within study areas. 

Floodplains: 46.5 ac (18.82 ha) direct/ 74.2 ac (30.03 ha) indirect 

Streams: 1,435 linear ft (437.4 linear m) direct/ 2, 649 linear ft (807.4 linear m) indirect Lakes/Waterbodies5: 0.0 ac (0.0 ha) direct/ 0.0 ac (0.0 ha) indirect 

Potentially affect at least nine named and unnamed water resources, including San FrancisquiCreek, Barron Creek, Permanente Creek, Stevens Creek, Calabasas Creek, and Saratoga Creek

Biological Resources IncludingWetlands: Ac (ha) of wetland, linear ft (m) of non-wetland waters, and number of special-status species within potential impact study areas 

Wetlandsv: 0.0 ac (0.0 ha) direct/ 4.1 ac (1.66 ha) indirect 

Non-Wetland Waters: 672 linear ft (204.8 linear m) Species: 5 special-status plant and 9 special-status wildlife species This alignment alternative would have potential to directly impact non-wetland waters and indAlignment alternative would have the potential to impact both special-status plant and wildlife species impacts include Contra Costa goldfields, San Francisco garter snake, California tiger sared-legged frog. Potentially result in a barrier to wildlife movement. Placement along transporminimize impacts. 

Fault Crossings Buried Trace of Unnamed Fault (Potentially Active) – At Grade Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources:4Number of resources rated high potential direct effects 

Public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges within 0–150 ft (46 m) from centalternative include (1) Holbrook Palmer Park, (2) El Camino Park, (3) Peers Park, (4) Bowden 

(6) Bracher Park, and (7) San Francisco Bay Trail. Few potential direct impacts are anticipated alignment alternative is within or directly adjacent to existing transportation rights-of-way. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

C. NILES/I-880 ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES (OAKLAND TO NILES JUNCTION) All information presented is for the area from Oakland to Niles Junction. These alternatives are shown in Figure 7.3-3 

7.3-3. 

Table 7.3-3 

Niles/I-880: Oakland to Niles Junction 

West Oakland to Niles Junction 12th Street/City Cente

Physical/Operational Characteristics Alignment Alternative Description From the West Oakland station site, this is the alignment 

alternative currently used by the Capitol intercity rail service. From Oakland, this alignment alternative would travel south along the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) Hayward Line. Station location options considered in this segment include West Oakland, Oakland International Airport (Coliseum BART) Station, and Union City. 

From the 12th Street/City Cente

station site, this alignment altesouth following the UPRR Haywlocation options considered in 

Street/City Center, Oakland In(Coliseum/BART) Station, and 

Length 27.74 mi (44.64 km) 26.73 mi (43.02 km) Cost (dollars) $2.34 billion $2.25 billion Travel Time 12 min (West Oakland-Union City) 11 min (12th Street-Union City) Ridership This alignment would directly serve Oakland and Oakland 

International Airport. 

Sensitivity analysis for the Altaalternative to have somewhat revenue potential (2.7% more revenue) than the network alteIn contrast, for the Pacheco Paresulted in somewhat lower ridpotential (0.6% ridership and 2

Constructability Maintaining operations on the existing rail services while 

constructing grade separations, tunnels, elevated sections, and stations would involve major construction issues/challenges. However, the infrastructure improvements could be constructed incrementally. 

 Maintaining operations on the while constructing grade separsections, and stations would inissues/challenges. However, timprovements could be constru

Operational Issues Average speed =103.5 mph (172.5 kph) 

Maximum speed =172.2 mph (287 kph) Potential for shared tracks with Capitol Rail Service. Potential conflict with UPRR freight access and operations. 

Average speed = 107.7 mph (Maximum speed =172.2 mph (Potential for shared tracks with Potential conflict with UPRR freoperations. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

HST Al

Niles/I-880 (Oakla

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.3-3 

Niles/I-880: Oakland to Niles Junction 

West Oakland to Niles Junction 12th Street/City Cente

Potential Environmental Impacts Travel Conditions The Oakland to Niles Junction alignments would bring direct 

HST service up the East Bay to Oakland with a potential station in West Oakland, at Oakland International Airport 

(OAK) (Oakland Coliseum), and a potential southern Alameda County station at either Union City or Fremont 

(Warm Springs). These alignments would increase connectivity and accessibility to Oakland, the East Bay, and Oakland International Airport. The HST system would provide a safer, more reliable, energy-efficient intercity mode directly to the East Bay while improving the safety, reliability and performance of the existing Capitol intercity service (Sacramento to San Jose via I-80) through grade separation improvements between Oakland and Niles Junction. This alignment alternative would increase the capacity for intercity travel in the East Bay and reduce 

highway congestion. 

The Oakland to Niles Junction direct HST service up the East potential stations in Downtown International Airport (Coliseumsouthern Alameda County stator Fremont (Auto Mall Parkwaywould increase connectivity anOakland, the East Bay, and OaAirport. The HST system woulreliable, energy-efficient intercEast Bay while improving the s

performance of the existing Ca(Sacramento to San Jose via I-separation improvements betwCity. This alignment alternativcapacity for intercity travel in thighway congestion. 

Noise and Vibration:i High, 

medium, or low potential impacts 

Medium potential of noise impacts. High potential of vibration impacts. There would be an increase in noise levels due to increased frequency of trains. There would be a reduction in noise levels due to the elimination of horn noise and gate noise 

from existing services as a result of the grade separations at existing grade crossings. 

Medium potential of noise impavibration impacts. There would be an increase in increased frequency of trains. reduction in noise levels due to noise and gate noise from exisof the grade separations at exi

Land Use and Planning, Communities and Neighborhoods, Property, and Environmental Justice 

Compatibility: The majority of this alignment alternative is 

compatible (high rating), given that it is within or immediately adjacent to an existing major rail or highway rights-of-way. Environmental Justice: This alignment alternative has medium environmental justice impact rating. Community: This alignment alternative would not affect community cohesion, given that it is within or immediately 

Compatibility: The majority of alternative is compatible (high within or immediately adjacent or highway rights-of-way. Environmental Justice: This almedium environmental justice Community: This alignment alaffect community cohesion, giv
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.3-3 

Niles/I-880: Oakland to Niles Junction 

West Oakland to Niles Junction 12th Street/City Cente

adjacent to an existing major rail or highway rights-of-way. Property: This alignment alternative has the potential for low property impacts. 

immediately adjacent to an exhighway rights-of-way. Property: This alignment alterfor low property impacts. 

Aesthetics and Visual Resources: General impacts and rating. 

Includes highway grade separations and an elevated alignment. Overall low visual impact 

Cultural Resources and Paleontological Resources:iii

Potential presence of historical resources in area of potential effect 

There are 24 known cultural resources. The majority of resources are located within the city of Oakland and include the Old Oakland Historic District. Resources include buildings and industrial complexes dating from the 1920s and 1940s and residential properties dating from the 1880s to the 1940s. 

32 known cultural resources. This alignment alternative has cultural resources within this cresources are located within thinclude buildings and residentiathe 1880s to the 1920s. 

Hydrology and Water Resources:iv

Potential impacts and associated ac (ha) of floodplains and linear ft (m) of streams within potential impact study areas, ac (ha) lakes/other water bodies within study areas. 

Floodplains: 4.3 ac (1.74 ha) direct/ 9.5 ac (3.84 ha) indirect Streams: 1,035 linear ft (315.5 m) direct/ 8,828 linear ft (2,690.8 linear m) indirect Lakes/Waterbodies: 0.0 ac (0.0 ha) direct/ 0.0 ac (0.0 ha) indirect Potentially affect at least 13 named and unnamed water resources, including Arroyo Viejo, Lion Creek, San Leandro Creek, San Lorenzo Creek, and Alameda Creek. Includes tunnels that would avoid impacts on the floodplain, and aerial structures that would minimize impact on the floodplain and streams, creeks, and channels. 

Floodplains: 4.3 ac (1.74 ha) dindirect Streams: 1,035 linear ft (315.ft (2,690.8 linear m) indirect Lakes/Waterbodies: 0.0 ac (0.ha) indirect Potentially affect 8 named and resources, including Mission CrLagoon/Elizabeth Lake, PenitenSlough/Coyote Creek. Includeavoid impacts on the floodplainthat would minimize impact on streams, creeks, and channels
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.3-3 

Niles/I-880: Oakland to Niles Junction 

West Oakland to Niles Junction 12th Street/City Cente

Biological Resources Including Wetlands Ac (ha) of wetland, linear ft (m) of non-wetland waters, and number of special-status species within potential impact study areas 

Wetlandsv: 0.11 ac (0.04 ha) direct/ 52.1 ac (21.07 ha) 

indirect Non-Wetland Waters: 455 linear ft (138.7 linear m) Species: 5 special-status plant and 23 special-status wildlife species This alignment alternative would have potential to indirectly impact the most wetlands. Alignment alternative would have the potential to impact the least plant species. Potential species impacts include Presidio clarkia, brown pelican, California clapper rail, California least tern, and salt marsh harvest mouse. Potentially result in a barrier to wildlife movement. Placement along transportation corridors would minimize impacts. 

Wetlandsv: 0.11 ac (0.04 ha) d

indirect Non-Wetland Waters: 455 lineaSpecies: 6 special-status plant awildlife species This alignment alternative woulindirectly impact the least wetlaalternative would have the poteplant species. Potential speciePresidio clarkia, brown pelican, California least tern, and salt mPotentially result in a barrier to Placement along transportation impacts. 

Fault Crossings Hayward (Active) – At Grade - Adjacent and Parallel Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources:4Number of resources rated high potential direct effects 

Public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges within 0–150 ft (46 m) from center of Alignment Alternative include (1) Coliseum Gardens Park, (2) Stonehurst Recreation Area Park, (3) Charles F. Kennedy Park, (4) Quarry Lakes Regional Park, (5) Rancho Arroyo Park, and (6) San Francisco Bay Trail. Few potential direct impacts are anticipated given that much of the alignment alternative is within or directly adjacent to existing transportation rights-of-way. 

Public parks, recreation lands, wrefuges within 0–50 ft from cenalternative include Madison ParPark, (3) Stonehurst Recreation F. Kennedy Park, (5) Quarry LaRancho Arroyo Park, and (7) SaFew potential direct impacts are much of the alignment alternatiadjacent to existing transportat
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

D. NILES/I-880 ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES (NILES JUNCTION TO SAN JOSE) 

All information presented is for the area from Niles Junction to San Jose. This alignment alternative is shown in Figure 

Table 7.3-4. 

Table 7.3-4 

Niles/I-880: Niles Junction to San Jose 

Niles Junction to San Jose via Trimble Niles Junction to San 

Physical/Operational Characteristics Alignment Alternative Description From Niles Junction, this alignment alternative would travel 

south along the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) Hayward Line to the UPRR Milpitas Line (through Fremont), transition to the I-880 median, and then transition to Trimble road to San Jose. Station options considered in this segment include Fremont (Warm Springs) and San Jose Diridon. 

From Niles Junction, this alignmtravel south along the Union PHayward Line to the UPRR MilpFremont), and then transition tSan Jose. Station options consinclude Fremont (Warm Spring

Length 17.04 mi (27.43 km) 16.22 mi (26.10 km) Cost (dollars) $2.18 billion $1.61 billion Travel Time 15 min (San Jose–Union City) 13 min (San Jose–Union City) Ridership Would have slightly less intercity ridership potential as Niles 

Junction to San Jose via I-880 alternative (as a result of the 

2-minute additional travel times). 

Would have about slightly morNiles Junction to San Jose via T

Constructability Major construction issues associated with constructing 

columns and footings in the wide median of I-880 (between San Jose and Fremont) and tunneling adjacent to San Jose Airport along Trimble Road. 

Major construction issues assocolumns and footings in the wi(between San Jose and Fremo

Operational Issues Average speed =87.1 mph (145.2 kph) 

Maximum speed =134.4 mph (224 kph) Potential for shared tracks with Capitol Rail Service. Potential conflict with UPRR freight access and operations. 

Average speed =93.3 mph (15Maximum speed =151.8 mph (Potential for shared tracks with Potential conflict with UPRR freoperations. 

Potential Environmental Impacts Travel Conditions These alignments would increase connectivity and 

accessibility to the East Bay and San Jose The HST system would provide a safer, more reliable, energy-efficient intercity mode directly to the East Bay. This alignment alternative would increase the capacity for intercity travel in 

These alignments would increaaccessibility to the East Bay, asystem would provide a safer, efficient intercity mode directly alignment alternative would gr
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

HST Al

Niles/I-880 (Niles J

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.3-4 

Niles/I-880: Niles Junction to San Jose 

Niles Junction to San Jose via Trimble Niles Junction to San 

the East Bay and reduce highway congestion. capacity for intercity travel in t

highway congestion. 

Noise and Vibration:i High, 

medium, or low potential impacts 

Medium potential of noise impacts. Medium potential of vibration impacts. 

Medium potential of noise impaof vibration impacts. 

Land Use and Planning, Communities and Neighborhoods, Property, and Environmental Justice 

Compatibility: The majority of this alignment alternative is 

compatible (high rating), given that it is within or immediately adjacent to an existing major rail or highway rights-of-way. Environmental Justice: This alignment alternative has medium environmental justice impact rating for East Bay between Niles Junction and San Jose, using Trimble Road. Community: This alignment alternative would not affect community cohesion, given that it is within or immediately adjacent to an existing major rail or highway rights-of-way. Property: This alignment alternative has the potential for low property impacts. 

Compatibility: The majority of alternative is compatible (high within or immediately adjacent or highway rights-of-way. Environmental Justice: This almedium environmental justice Bay between Niles Junction anCommunity: This alignment alaffect community cohesion, givimmediately adjacent to an exhighway rights-of-way. Property: This alignment alterfor low property impacts. 

Aesthetics and Visual Resources: General impacts and rating. 

Includes elevated alignment adjacent to residential, along I880 freeway and at the Diridon San Jose station. Overall medium visual impact 

Include elevated alignment adjalong I-880, along Montague athe historic Santa Clara Depot Diridon San Jose station. Over

Cultural Resources and Paleontological Resources:iii

Potential presence of historical resources in area of potential effect 

There are 31 known cultural resources. The majority of resources are located within San Jose, which includes the Santa Clara de Asis Mission. The remains of a Pleistocene mammoth were discovered near the airport in 2005. 

There are 4 known cultural resThere are few archaeological olocated in the area of San Jose

Hydrology and Water Resources:iv

Potential impacts and associated ac (ha) of floodplains and linear ft (m) of streams within potential impact study areas, ac (ha) lakes/other water bodies within study areas. 

Floodplains: 36.4 ac (14.73 ha) direct/ 129.8 ac (52.53 ha) indirect Streams: 1,013 linear ft (308.8 m) direct/ 2,220 linear ft (676.7 linear m) indirect Lakes/Waterbodies: 0.7 ac (0.28 ha) direct/ 1.3 ac (0.53 ha) indirect 

Floodplains: 45.5 ac (18.41ha) ha) indirect Streams: 1,135 linear ft (345.ft (825.1 linear m) indirect Lakes/Waterbodies: 0.7 ac (0.(0.53 ha) indirect 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.3-4 

Niles/I-880: Niles Junction to San Jose 

Niles Junction to San Jose via Trimble Niles Junction to San 

Potentially affect 8 named and unnamed water resources, including Mission Creek, Alameda Creek, the Lagoon/Elizabeth Lake, Penitencia Creek, and Mud Slough/Coyote Creek. Tunnel would extend under the Guadalupe River and Coyote Creek. 

Potentially affect 10 named anresources, including Mission CrLagoon/Elizabeth Lake, PenitenSlough/Coyote Creek, and Guastructure would extend over thCoyote Creek. 

Biological Resources Including Wetlands Ac (ha) of wetland, linear ft (m) of non-wetland waters, and number of special-status species within potential impact study areas 

Wetlandsv: 1.27 ac (0.51 ha) direct/ 302.3 ac (122.34 ha) 

indirect Non-Wetland Waters: 958 linear ft (292.0 linear m) Species: 6 special-status plant and 25 special-status wildlife species This alignment alternative would have potential to directly and indirectly impact the least wetlands and non-wetland waters. Alignment alternative would have the potential to impact the most plant species. Potential species impacts include Contra Costa goldfields, vernal pool tadpole shrimp, brown pelican, California clapper rail, California least tern, and salt marsh harvest mouse. Potentially result in a barrier to wildlife movement. Placement along transportation corridors would minimize impacts. 

Wetlandsv: 1.80 ac (0.73 ha) dha) indirect Non-Wetland Waters: 1,080 linSpecies: 5 special-status plant wildlife species This alignment alternative woudirectly and indirectly impact tnon-wetland waters. Alignmenthe potential to impact fewer pspecies impacts include Contra pool tadpole shrimp, brown perail, California least tern, and smouse. Potentially result in a movement. Placement along trwould minimize impacts. 

Fault Crossings Hayward Fault (Active) – At Grade 

Silver Creek Fault (Potentially Active) – Above Grade 

Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources:4Number of resources rated high potential direct effects 

Public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges within 0–150 ft (46 m) from center of alignment alternative include (1) Fremont Central Park, (2) Grimmer Park. Few potential direct impacts are anticipated given that much of the Alignment Alternative is within or directly adjacent to existing transportation rights-of-way, and no resources exist in areas where the Alignment Alternative is not adjacent to or within this existing right-of-way. 

Public parks, recreation lands, refuges within 0–150 ft (46 m) alignment alternative include (2) Grimmer Park, (3) ColumbuRose Garden, and (5) Guadalupotential direct impacts are anof the alignment alternative is adjacent to existing transporta
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

E. PACHECO PASS ALTERNATIVE All information presented is for the area from San Jose Diridon Station to San Luis Reservoir. This segment is shown idescribed in Table 7.3-5. 

Table 7.3-5 

Pacheco Pass Alternatives: San Jose Diridon Station to San Luis Reservoir 

Alignment Alternative Description From the Diridon Station site in downtown San Jose, this alignment alternative would travel so

Caltrain alignment to Gilroy. From Gilroy, the alignment alternative would travel east through Central Valley floor. Station options considered in this segment include Morgan Hill (Caltrain) 

Length 57.48 mi (92.5 km) Cost (dollars) $3.74 billion Travel Time 14.5 min (San Jose–Gilroy) Ridership This alignment alternative provides high HST ridership potential to the Bay Area via the PacheConstructability Difficult to maintain roadway and existing freight and passenger rail operations during constru

infrastructure. 

Operational Issues Average speed = 118.6 mph (197.6 kph) 

Maximum speed =178.8 mph (298 kph) Potential for shared tracks with Caltrain commuter rail Service. Potential conflict with UPRR froperations. 

Travel Conditions The Pacheco alignments would bring direct HST service up the Caltrain alignment with a poten

(Caltrain) or Morgan Hill (Caltrain). This alignment alternative would increase connectivity and Southern Santa Clara County and Monterey/ Santa Cruz/ Salinas area. The HST system would reliable, energy-efficient intercity mode directly to Santa Clara County while improving the saf

performance of the existing Caltrain commuter rail service through grade separation improvemSan Jose. This alignment alternative would greatly increase the capacity for intercity travel in reduce highway congestion. The Gilroy station would be the closest HST station for Monterey

Benito counties. 

Noise and Vibration:i High, 

medium, or low potential impacts 

Medium potential of noise impacts. Medium potential of vibration impacts. There would be an increase in noise levels due to increased frequency of trains. There would 

levels due to the elimination of horn noise and gate noise from existing services as a result of existing grade crossings. 

Land Use and Planning, Communities and Neighborhoods, Property, and Environmental 

Compatibility: The majority of this alignment alternative is compatible (high rating), given tha

immediately adjacent to an existing major rail or highway rights-of-way. It exhibits low compfollow a transportation right-of-way east of Gilroy. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.3-5 

Pacheco Pass Alternatives: San Jose Diridon Station to San Luis Reservoir 

Justice Environmental Justice: This alignment alternative has medium environmental justice impact r

Community: This alignment alternative would not affect community cohesion, given that it is adjacent to an existing major rail or highway rights-of-way in the urban areas. Property: This alignment alternative has the potential for low property impacts. 

Aesthetics and Visual Resources: General impacts and rating. 

Includes elevated facilities at the Diridon San Jose station, elevated facilities south of Diridon s

separations, expansion of existing railway corridor along Monterey Highway, new transportatio

Gilroy and Pacheco Valley, elevated crossing of SR 152 in Pacheco Valley, and cut and fill sect

Overall medium visual impact. 

Farmlands:ii Ac (ha) potentially 

affected 

Farmland: 241 ac (97.5 ha) Impact up to 176 ac (71.2 ha) of prime farmland. High potential for farmland severance sout

Cultural Resources and Paleontological Resources:iii

Potential presence of historical resources in area of potential effect 

There are 11 known cultural resources. Little development has taken place along this alignment. Resources include buildings, canals, potentially historic resources in the Santa Clara Valley, including Morgan Hill and Gilroy. 

Hydrology and Water Resources:iv

Potential impacts and associated ac (ha) of floodplains and linear ft (m) of streams within potential impact study areas, ac (ha) lakes/other water bodies within study areas. 

Floodplains: 103.4 ac (41.85 ha) direct/ 303.5 ac (122.8 ha) indirect Streams: 2,674 linear ft (815.0 m) direct/ 9,215 linear ft (2,808.7 linear m) indirect Lakes/Waterbodies5: 0.0 ac (0.0 ha) direct/ 0.0 ac (0.0 ha) indirect 

Potentially affect at least 13 unnamed and named water resources, including Los Gatos CreekLlagas Creek, Llagas Creek, Miller Slough, Pajaro River, Pacheco Creek, and Tequisquita Sloug

grade permeable track, aerial structure, and tunnels would minimize impacts. 

Biological Resources Including Wetlands Ac (ha) of wetland, linear ft (m) of non-wetland waters, and number of special-status species within potential impact study areas 

Wetlandsv: 0.11 ac (0.04 ha) direct/ 43.8 ac (17.73 ha) indirect 

Non-Wetland Waters: 1,960 linear ft (597.4 linear m) 

Species: 23 special-status plant and 27 special-status wildlife species This alignment alternative would have potential to indirectly impact a substantial amount of w

waters. Alignment alternative would also have the potential to impact plant and wildlife specie

impacts include Tiburon Indian paintbrush, Santa Clara Valley dudleya, Bay checkerspot butte

frog, and San Joaquin kit fox. Potentially result in a barrier to wildlife movement. Placement acorridors would minimize impacts. 

Fault Crossings Silver Creek (Potentially Active) – At Grade 

Calaveras (Active) – At Grade 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

HST Al

Pach

(San Jose t

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.3-5 

Pacheco Pass Alternatives: San Jose Diridon Station to San Luis Reservoir 

Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources:4

Number of resources rated high potential direct effects 

Public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges within 0–150 ft (46 m) from centalternative include (1) Edenvale Garden Park, (2) Coyote Creek Park, and (3) Upper Cottonwo

potential direct impacts are anticipated given that much of the alignment alternative is within existing transportation rights-of-way, and few resources exist in areas where the alignment alto or within this existing right-of-way. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

F. PACHECO PASS ALTERNATIVES 

All information presented is for the area from San Luis Reservoir to UPRR or BNSF. This segment is shown in Figure 7.3-6 

7.3-6. 

Table 7.3-6 

Pacheco Pass Alternatives: San Luis Reservoir to UPRR or BNSF 

GEA North Henry Miller (UPRR Connection) Henry Mille

Alignment Alternative Description 

From the Central Valley floor, this alignment alternative would pass through the northern portion of the GEA. 

From the Central Valley floor, this alignment alternative would pass north of Santa Nella and would then generally follow Henry Miller Avenue to the UPRR N/S line in the Central Valley. 

From the Centraalignment alternSanta Nella and follow Henry MiN/S line in the C

Length 60.22 mi (96.92 km) 62.69 mi (100.89 km) 65.06 mi (104.7Cost (dollars) $1.41 billion $1.36 billion $1.40 billion Travel Time Gilroy–Briggsmore=32 min (88.66 mi; 

142.7 km) Gilroy–Modesto=33 min (91.04 mi; 146.5 km) Gilroy–Fresno (UPRR)=43 min (128 mi; 206 km) Gilroy–Fresno (BNSF)=44 min (135.4 mi; 217.8 km) 

Gilroy–Briggsmore=44 min (133 mi; 214 km) Gilroy–Modesto=45 min (130 mi; 209 km) Gilroy–Fresno=40 min (115 mi; 185 km) 

Gilroy–Briggsmokm) Gilroy–ModestoGilroy–Fresno=4

Ridership Forecast to have slightly less ridership 

(2.3%) and revenue (1%) than the Henry Miller Road (UPRR Connection) Alternative. Higher ridership between Sacramento and the Bay Area would offset less ridership between the Bay Area and southern California. 

This Alternative would have slightly higher ridership potential than the GEA North Alternative. 

 This Alternative ridership potentAlternative (UPRof longer travel Area and Sacram

Constructability Would require more grade separations 

than Henry Miller at the eastern end of the alignment. 

Would require aerial segment through sensitive grasslands/wetlands area. 

 Would require sensitive grassla
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

HST Al

Pach

(San Luis Reserv

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.3-6 

Pacheco Pass Alternatives: San Luis Reservoir to UPRR or BNSF 

GEA North Henry Miller (UPRR Connection) Henry Mille

Operational Issues Gilroy–Briggsmore 

Average speed=161.1 mph (268.6 kph) Maximum speed=210 mph (350 kph) Gilroy–Modesto Average speed=161.8 mph (269.6 kph) Maximum speed=210 mph (350 kph) Gilroy–Fresno (UPRR) Average speed=170.8 mph (284.6 kph) Maximum speed=210mph (350 kph) Gilroy–Fresno (BNSF) Average speed=171 mph (285 kph) Maximum speed=210 mph (350 kph) 

Gilroy–Briggsmore Average speed=168.6 mph (281 kph) Maximum speed=210 mph (350 kph) Gilroy–Modesto Average speed=170.1 mph (283.5kph) Maximum speed=210 mph (350 kph) Gilroy–Fresno Average speed=166.8 mph (277.9kph) Maximum speed=210 mph (350 kph) 

Gilroy–BriggsmoAverage speed=Maximum speedGilroy–Modesto Average speed=Maximum speedGilroy–Fresno Average speed=Maximum speed

Travel Conditions This alignment alternative would have 

increased travel times between Los Angeles and San Jose, but would reduce travel times between San Jose and Sacramento. 

This alignment alternative would generally parallel an exist(Henry Miller Road) in the Central Valley. It would provide between Los Angeles and San Jose. 

Noise and Vibration:i

High, medium, and low potential impacts 

Low potential of noise impacts. Low potential of vibration impacts.. Introduces new potential impacts in partially residential area on what is currently a sparsely used freight line. 

Low potential of noise impacts. Low potential of vibration conventional speeds. There would be a reduction in noise elimination of horn noise and gate noise from existing servseparations at some existing grade crossings. The grade c(elimination of horn noise and gate noise from existing servgrade separations would offset the increase in train freque

Land Use and Planning, Communities and Neighborhoods, Property, and Environmental Justice 

Compatibility: The majority of this alignment alternative is incompatible (low rating), given that it is within or immediately adjacent to agricultural land. Environmental Justice: This alignment alternative has high environmental justice impact rating. It traverses lower 

Compatibility: Highly compatible with existing Henry Miller and Elgin Avenue. New alignment right-of-way would be inagricultural uses east of Elgin Avenue. Environmental Justice: This alignment alternative has low impact rating. Although the environmental justice percentaexceeded east of Gilroy, the environmental justice populatifrom the HST line. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.3-6 

Pacheco Pass Alternatives: San Luis Reservoir to UPRR or BNSF 

GEA North Henry Miller (UPRR Connection) Henry Mille

land use density areas with higher minority and low income populations. Community: This alignment alternative would not affect community cohesion, given that it is within or immediately adjacent to an existing major rail or highway rights-of-way in the urban areas. Property: This alignment alternative has 

the potential for low property impacts because it either traverses existing transportation right-of-way or through rural land. 

Community: This alignment alternative would not affect cothat it is within or immediately adjacent to an existing majoway in the urban areas. Property: This alignment alternative has the potential for lbecause it either traverses existing transportation right-of-w

Aesthetics and Visual Resources: General impacts and rating. 

Includes new transportation corridor between Pacheco Pass and Gustine, elevated crossing of I-5, wetlands crossings, and new transportation corridor connections to UPRR or BNSF in Chowchilla. Overall medium visual impact. 

Includes a trench near the San Joaquin National Cemetery, 5, and wetlands crossings. Overall low visual impact. 

Farmlands:ii Ac (ha) 

potentially affected

Farmland: 271 ac (110 ha) Similar farmland impacts as the Henry Miller (UPRR Connection), but have the greatest impact on prime farmland. Impact up to 137 ac (55.4 ha) of prime farmland. Highest potential for farmland severance. 

Farmland: 265 ac (107 ha) Less farmland impacts than either the GEA North or Henry Miller (BNSF Connection). Impact up to 128 ac (52 ha) of prime farmland. Generally follows existing roadway, but potential for farmland severance. 

Farmland: 295 Would have grefarmlands. Impof prime farmlanexisting roadwafarmland severa

Cultural Resources and Paleontological Resources:iii Potential 

presence of historical resources in area of potential effect

There are 9 known cultural resources. Much of the area along this alignment alternative has seen little development historically. Previously recorded resources include prehistoric archaeological sites and architectural resources. 

There are 5 known cultural resources. Much of the area along this alignment alternative has seen little development historically. Previously recorded resources include an archaeological site and architectural resources. 

There are 5 knoMuch of the arealternative has shistorically. Preinclude an archaarchitectural res
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.3-6 

Pacheco Pass Alternatives: San Luis Reservoir to UPRR or BNSF 

GEA North Henry Miller (UPRR Connection) Henry Mille

Hydrology and Water Resources:iv Potential 

impacts and associated ac (ha) of floodplains, and linear ft (m) of streams within potential impact study areas, ac (ha) lakes/other water bodies within study areas. 

Floodplains: 53.08 ac (21.48 ha) direct/ 158.3 ac (64.04 ha) indirect Streams: 6,771 linear ft (2,063.8 linear m) direct/ 20,436 linear ft (6,228.9 linear m) indirect Lakes/Waterbodies: 2.3 (0.93 ha) direct/ 

8.4 ac (3.40 ha) indirect Potentially affect at least 44 unnamed and named water resources, including (i.e., not limited to) California Aqueduct, Mendota Canal, Garzas Creek, Sullivan Extension, Duck Ponds, Mud Slough, San Joaquin River, Cottonwood Creek, Los Banos Creek, Livingston Canal, and the Merced River. 

Floodplains: 126.4 ac 51.15( ha) direct/ 469.5 ac (190.01 ha) indirect Streams: 6,697 linear ft (2,041.2 linear m) direct/ 44,458 linear ft (13,550.8 linear m) indirect Lakes/Waterbodies: 2.5 (1.01 ha) 

direct/ 10.0 ac (4.05 ha) indirect Potentially affect at least 44 unnamed and named water resources, including Tule Lake, California Aqueduct, San Louis Creek, Mendota Canal, Los Banos Creek, San Louis Wasteway, Mud Slough, Delta Canal, San Joaquin River, Chowchilla River, and Berenda Slough. Primarily at-grade and adjacent to Henry Miller Road and elevated through portion of GEA; constructed with culverts under the track to convey anticipated storm flows and to minimize ponding.

Floodplains: 13487.3 ac (197.2Streams: 6,266 direct/ 43,420 liindirect Lakes/Waterbod10.6 ac (4.29 haPotentially affecnamed water re(UPRR ConnectiPrimarily at-gradMiller Road and of GEA; construthe track to conand to minimize 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.3-6 

Pacheco Pass Alternatives: San Luis Reservoir to UPRR or BNSF 

GEA North Henry Miller (UPRR Connection) Henry Mille

Biological Resources Including Wetlands Ac (ha) of wetland, linear ft (m) of non-wetland waters, and number of special-status species within potential impact study areas 

Wetlandsv: 17.96 ac (7.27 ha) direct/ 

1,037.2 ac (419.75 ha) indirect Non-Wetland Waters: 6,771 linear ft (292.0 linear m) Species: 22 special-status plant and 34 special-status wildlife species This alignment alternative would impact the GEA and have potential to directly impact the least non-wetland waters and plant and wildlife species. This alignment alternative would have the potential to impact the most wetlands. Potential species impacts include succulent owl’s clover, hairy orcutt grass, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, California tiger salamander, vernal pool tadpole shrimp, least Bell’s vireo, riparian (San Joaquin Valley) woodrat, and San Joaquin kit fox. Potentially result in a barrier to wildlife movement. This alignment alternative would generally not follow transportation corridors. 

Wetlandsv: 11.61 ac (4.7 ha) direct/ 

1,186.0 ac (479.96 ha) indirect Non-Wetland Waters: 10,588 linear ft (3,227.2 linear m) Species: 25 special-status plant and 34 special-status wildlife species This alignment alternative would impact the GEA and have potential to indirectly impact the most wetlands and impact the most non-wetland waters. Alignment alternative would also have the potential to impact the most plant and wildlife species. Potential species impacts include succulent owl’s clover, hairy orcutt grass, Greene’s tuctoria, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, vernal pool tadpole shrimp, least Bell’s vireo, riparian (San Joaquin Valley) woodrat, and San Joaquin kit fox. Potentially result in a barrier to wildlife movement. Placement along transportation corridors would minimize impacts. 

Wetlandsv: 11.4

1,185.0 ac (479Non-Wetland W(3,143.1 linear mSpecies: 25 spespecial-status wThis alignment athe GEA and haimpact the mosalternative wouimpact the mosPotential specieowl’s clover, hatuctoria, valley evernal pool tadpvireo, riparian (Swoodrat, and SaPotentially resulmovement. Placcorridors would 

Fault Crossings Ortigalita (Active) – At Grade 

Embankment 

Ortigalita (Active) – At Grade Ortigalita (Activ

Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources:4 Number of resources rated high (potential direct effects) 

Public parks, recreation lands, wildlife v waterfowl refuges within 0–150 ft (46 m) from center of alignment alternative include the San Luis National Wildlife Refuge, North Grasslands Wildlife Area, and Great Valley Grasslands State Park. Few potential direct impacts are anticipated given that much of the alignment alternative is within or directly adjacent to existing transportation rightsof-way. 

Public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refugfrom center of alignment alternative include the Los Banos potential direct impacts are anticipated given that much of 

within or directly adjacent to existing transportation rights-
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

G. ALTAMONT PASS ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES (NILES CANYON TO ALTAMONT PASS) All information presented is for the area from Niles Canyon to the Altamont Pass. This alternative is shown in Figure 7.

Table 7.3-7. 

Table 7.3-7 

Altamont Pass Alignment Alternatives: Niles Canyon to Altamont Pass 

 I-680/I-580/UPRR I-580/UPRR Patterson Pass/UPRR 

Physical/Operational Characteristics Alignment Alternative Description 

The I-680/I-580/UPRR alignment alternative would begin at Niles Canyon to Sunol, follow the I-680 Freeway, north and transition to the I-580 Freeway median east to Altamont Pass. Station options considered in this segment include Pleasanton (BART), Livermore (I-580), or Livermore (Greenville/I580). 

The I-580/UPRR alignment alternative would begin at Niles Canyon and would follow UPRR through Pleasanton, travel north to the I-580 and then to Altamont Pass. Station options would be at Pleasanton (I-680/Bernal Rd), or Livermore (I-580), or Livermore (Greenville/I580). 

The Patterson Pass/UPRR alignment alternative would begin at Niles Canyon and would follow the UPRR line to Patters Pass and then to the Central Valley. Station options considered in this segment include Pleasanton (I680/Bernal Rd), or Livermore (Downtown), or Livermore (Greenville/UPRR). 

The alteNilefollothe optseg(I-6LiveLive(Gr

Length 30.71 mi (49.43 km) 27.32 mi (43.96 km) 25.60 mi (41.19 km) 25.Cost (dollars) $2.37 billion $2.0 billion $1.72 billion $1.Travel Time 22 min 17 min 14 min 14 Ridership Forecast to provide 1.6% 

less total ridership and 1.4% less total revenue than the UPRR alignment primarily as a result of longer travel times. 

Would provide the slightly less ridership potential than alternatives using the UPRR alignment as a result of longer travel times. 

Would provide high ridership and revenue potential through the Altamont Pass. 

Woand thro

Constructability Would require extensive 

aerial structure along the I580 and I-680 freeway and rail corridors with major constructability issues. A particularly long and high aerial curve would be 

Would require extensive aerial structure along the I580 freeway and rail corridor. Construction issues through downtown Pleasanton. 

Would require extensive earthwork as compared to the UPRR alignment alternative. Construction issues through downtown Livermore and Pleasanton. 

CondowPlea
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.3-7 

Altamont Pass Alignment Alternatives: Niles Canyon to Altamont Pass 

 I-680/I-580/UPRR I-580/UPRR Patterson Pass/UPRR 

required from the I-580 to I-680 alignments. 

Operational Issues Average speed: 91.1 mph 

(151.8 kph) Maximum speed: 159 mph (265 kph) HST operations would need to be coordinated and integrated with BART. 

Average speed: 97.8 mph (162.9 kph) Maximum speed: 159 mph (265 kph) HST operations would need to be coordinated and integrated with ACE service and UPRR operations. 

Average speed: 105.8 mph (176.3 kph) Maximum speed: 171 mph (285 kph) HST operations would need to be coordinated and integrated with ACE service and UPRR operations. 

Ave(18Max(28HST to binteand 

Potential Environmental Impacts Travel Conditions This alignment alternative 

would provide direct HST service to the Tri-Valley area with potential stations at the Pleasanton (BART), Livermore (I-580), or Livermore (Greenville/I580). This alignment alternative would increase connectivity and accessibility to the I-580 Corridor and Tri-Valley area. The alignment alternative would provide a safer, more reliable, energy-efficient intercity mode along the I-580 Corridor while improving the safety, reliability, and performance of the regional commuter service. This alignment alternative would greatly increase the capacity for intercity and commuter travel and 

This alignment alternative would provide direct HST service to the Tri-Valley area with potential stations at Pleasanton (I-680/Bernal Rd), or Livermore (I-580), or Livermore (Greenville/I580). This alignment alternative would increase connectivity and accessibility to the I-580 Corridor and Tri-Valley area. The alignment alternative would provide a safer, more reliable, energy-efficient intercity mode along the I580 Corridor while improving the safety, reliability, and performance of the regional commuter service. This alignment alternative would greatly increase the capacity for intercity and commuter travel and reduce existing 

These alignment alternatives would pequivalent service to the I-580/UPRR 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

HST Al

Altamont Pass Al

(Niles Cany

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.3-7 

Altamont Pass Alignment Alternatives: Niles Canyon to Altamont Pass 

 I-680/I-580/UPRR I-580/UPRR Patterson Pass/UPRR 

reduce existing automobile traffic flow. The alignment alternative would provide connectivity to the BART station in Pleasanton. 

automobile traffic flow and reduce air pollution at some existing rail crossings. 

Noise and Vibration:i High, 

medium, and low potential impacts 

Low potential of noise impacts. Low potential of vibration impacts due to proximity of residential land use along the Tri-Valley segment. There would be an increase in noise levels due to increased frequency of trains. There would be a reduction in noise levels due to the elimination of horn noise and gate noise from existing services as a result of the grade separations at some existing grade crossings. 

Low potential of noise impacts and low potential of vibration impacts due to proximity of alignment alternative to industrial/commercial land uses. There would be an increase in noise levels due to increased frequency of trains. There would be a reduction in noise levels due to the elimination of horn noise and gate noise from existing services as a result of the grade separations at some existing grade crossings. 

Medium potential of noise impacts and a medium potential of vibration impacts due to proximity of residential land use along the Tri-Valley. There would be an increase in noise levels due to increased frequency of trains. There would be a reduction in noise levels due to the elimination of horn noise and gate noise from existing services as a result of the grade separations at some existing grade crossings. 

Medimppotimpresthe Thein nincrtrairedto tnoisexisof tsomcro

Land Use and Planning, Communities and Neighborhoods, Property, and Environmental Justice 

Compatibility: The majority of this alignment alternative is compatible (high rating), given that it is within or immediately adjacent to an existing major rail or highway rights-of-way. It exhibits low compatibility where it does not follow a transportation right-of-way in the Altamont Pass area. Environmental Justice: This alignment alternative has low environmental justice impact rating. 

Compatibility: The majority of this alignment alternative is compatible (high rating), given that it is within or immediately adjacent to an existing major rail or highway rights-of-way. It exhibits low compatibility where it does not follow a transportation right-of-way in the Altamont Pass area. Environmental Justice: This alignment alternative has low environmental justice impact rating. 

Compatibility: The majority of these are compatible (high rating), given thimmediately adjacent to an existing mrights-of-way. They exhibit low compnot follow a transportation rights-of-warea. Environmental Justice: These alignmlow environmental justice impact ratinCommunity: These alignment alternacommunity cohesion, given that they immediately adjacent to an existing mrights-of-way. Property: These alignment alternativlow to medium property impacts. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.3-7 

Altamont Pass Alignment Alternatives: Niles Canyon to Altamont Pass 

 I-680/I-580/UPRR I-580/UPRR Patterson Pass/UPRR 

Community: This alignment alternative would not affect community cohesion, given that it is mostly within or immediately adjacent to an existing major rail or highway rights-of-way. Property: This alignment alternative has the potential for high property impacts in the Niles to Sunol area, Dublin /Pleasanton areas, where additional property will be required., 

Community: This alignment alternative would not affect community cohesion, given that it is mostly within or immediately adjacent to an existing major rail or highway rights-of-way. Property: This alignment alternative has the potential for medium property impacts. 

Aesthetics and Visual Resources: General impacts and rating. 

Includes a trench alignment from tunnel portal to I-680, an elevated alignment along I-680, an elevated alignment through I-680, I580 interchange, elevated approaches to station, and an elevated crossing of I580. Overall medium visual impact. 

Include a trench alignment from tunnel portal to east of I-680, an elevated alignment along existing UPRR in Pleasanton, an atgrade alignment along existing UPRR through Livermore, and a deep cut at Altamont Summit. Overall medium visual impact. 

Includes an aerial alignment from tunnel portal to east of I680, an elevated alignment along existing UPRR in Pleasanton, and at-grade alignment along existing UPRR through Livermore, and cut and fill across summit. Overall low visual impact. 

Incfrom I-68aligUPRgraexisLiveand Oveimp

Farmlands:ii Ac (ha) potentially 

affected

Farmland: 14 ac (5.5 ha) Would have greatest potential impacts on farmlands. Impact up to 11.7 ac (4.7 ha) of prime farmland. 

Farmland: 12 ac (4.9 ha) Similar farmland impacts as the I-680/I-580/UPRR, but have the greatest impact on prime farmland. All farmland impact would be prime farmland. 

Farmland: 10 ac (3.9 ha) Less potential for farmland impacts than either the I680/I-580/UPRR or I580/UPRR. Impact up to 7.1 ac (2.9 ha) of prime farmland. 

FarWoimpinclAll be 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.3-7 

Altamont Pass Alignment Alternatives: Niles Canyon to Altamont Pass 

 I-680/I-580/UPRR I-580/UPRR Patterson Pass/UPRR 

Cultural Resources and Paleontological Resources:iii

Potential presence of historical resources in area of potential effect

There are 20 known cultural resources. Much of the area has seen recent development. Architectural resources include buildings from the 1890s and residential properties dating from 1910 to 1940. 

There are 17 known cultural resources. The Livermore Valley is known to be rich in prehistoric resources, including habitation sites and burials. Previously recorded resources include archaeological sites and architectural resources dating from the 1900s. 

There are 6 known cultural resources. There are few previously recorded archaeological sites or architectural resources. This alignment alternative would have a low sensitivity for cultural resources. 

TheresTherecor aThiwoufor 

Hydrology and WaterResources:iv Potential impacts 

and associated ac (ha) of floodplains, and linear ft (m) of streams within potential impact study areas, ac (ha) lakes/other water bodies within study areas. 

Floodplains: 3.7 ac (1.5 ha) direct/ 18.8 ac (7.61 ha) indirect Streams: 2,582 linear ft (787.3 linear m) direct/ 13,310 linear ft (4,056.9 linear m) indirect Lakes/Waterbodies: 0 ac (0.0 ha) direct/ 0.0 ac (0.0 ha) indirect Potentially affect at least 17 unnamed and named water resources, including Alameda Creek, Laurel Creek, Gold Creek, Arroyo Valle, Arroyo De La Laguna, Tassajara Creek, Cottonwood Creek, Arroyo Las Positas, Arroyo Seco, and South Bay Aqueduct. Constructed on aerial structure with the least amount of impact on floodplains. 

Floodplains: 8.2 ac (3.32 ha) direct/ 33.7 ac (13.64 ha) indirect Streams: 2,280 linear ft (694.9 linear m) direct/ 9,243 linear ft (2,817.3 linear m) indirect Lakes/Waterbodies: 2.1 ac (0.85 ha) direct/ 7.5 ac (3.04 ha) indirect Potentially affect 15 unnamed and named water resources, including (i.e., not limited to) Arroyo Valle, Arroyo De La Laguna, Cottonwood Creek, Arroyo Las Positas, Arroyo Seco, Arroyo Gravel Pits/Arroyo Mocho, South Bay Aqueduct, and Patterson Run (canal). Constructed at-grade and potentially impact more area of floodplain. 

Floodplains: 9.4 ac (3.8 ha) direct/ 20.6 ac (8.34 ha) indirect Streams: 1,861 linear ft (567.2 linear m) direct/ 6,253 linear ft (1905.9 linear m) indirect Lakes/Waterbodies: 0.0 ac (0.0 ha) direct/ 0.0 ac (0.0ha) indirect Potentially affect 9 unnamed and named water resources, including Arroyo Valle, Arroyo De La Laguna, Arroyo Las Positas, Arroyo Seco, Arroyo Gravel Pits/Arroyo Mocho, and South Bay Aqueduct and Patterson Run (canal). Constructed on aerial structure through most of the areas within the 100-year floodplain and would not impede storm flows. 

FloodireindStre(596,1lineLak(0.0 ha)PotunnresoAlaValArroSecPitsBay PatManwou
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.3-7 

Altamont Pass Alignment Alternatives: Niles Canyon to Altamont Pass 

 I-680/I-580/UPRR I-580/UPRR Patterson Pass/UPRR 

Biological Resources Including Wetlands Ac (ha) of wetland, linear ft (m) of nonwetland waters, and number of special-status species within potential impact study areas 

Wetlandsv: 0.66 ac (0.27 

ha) direct/ 72.1 ac (29.19 ha) indirect Non-Wetland Waters: 2,380 linear ft (725.4 linear m) Species: 24 special-status plant and 29 special-status wildlife species This alignment alternative would have potential to directly impact the least wetlands, but the most plant and wildlife species. Potential species impacts include palmate-bracted bird’s beak, longhorn fairy shrimp, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, vernal pool tadpole shrimp, and San Joaquin kit fox. Potentially result in a barrier to wildlife movement. Placement along transportation corridors would minimize impacts. 

Wetlandsv: 5.17 ac (2.1 ha) 

direct/ 226.3 ac (91.57 ha) indirect Non-Wetland Waters: 2,612 linear ft (796.1 linear m) Species: 24 special-status plant and 29 special-status wildlife species This alignment alternative would have potential to directly impact the most wetlands, non-wetland waters, and plant and wildlife species. Potential species impacts include palmate-bracted bird’s beak, longhorn fairy shrimp, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, vernal pool tadpole shrimp, and San Joaquin kit fox. Potentially result in a barrier to wildlife movement. Placement along transportation corridors would minimize impacts. 

Wetlandsv: 2.59 ac (1.0 ha) direct/ 160.1 ac (64.78 ha) indirect Non-Wetland Waters: 1,371 linear ft (417.9 linear m) Species: 20 special-status plant and 28 special-status wildlife species This alignment alternative would have potential to impact the least plant and wildlife species. Potential species impacts include palmatebracted bird’s beak, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, vernal pool tadpole shrimp, and San Joaquin kit fox. Potentially result in a barrier to wildlife movement. Placement along transportation corridors would minimize impacts. 

WedireindNonlineSpeplanwildThiwoudirenonplanPotincllongtadJoaresumovtranwou

Fault Crossings Calaveras (Active) – Tunnel 

Pleasanton (Active) – Above Grade Livermore (Potentially Active) – Above Grade Greenville (Active) – Above Grade 

Calaveras (Active) – Tunnel Livermore (Potentially Active) – Above Grade Greenville (Active) – Above Grade 

Calaveras (Active) – Tunnel Livermore (Potentially Active) – Above Grade Greenville (Active) – Above Grade Corral Hallow (Potentially Active) – At Grade 

CalaLiveActGreGra
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.3-7 

Altamont Pass Alignment Alternatives: Niles Canyon to Altamont Pass 

 I-680/I-580/UPRR I-580/UPRR Patterson Pass/UPRR 

Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources:4 Number of resources rated high (potential direct effects) 

Public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges 0–150 ft (46 m) from center of alignment alternative include (1) Augustin-Bernal Park, (2) Muirwood Park, (3) Dublin Sports Grounds Park, (4) Iron Horse Trail, (5) Vargas Plateau, (6) Bay Ridge Trail, (7) Pleasanton Ridge, and (8) San Joaquin County to Shadow Cliffs Trail. Few potential direct impacts are anticipated given that much of the alignment alternative is within or directly adjacent to existing transportation rights-of-way, and few resources exist in areas where the alignment alternative is not adjacent to or within this existing right-of-way. Exceptions include the Augustin-Bernal Park. 

Public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges 0–150 falignment alternative include (1) Augustin-Bernal Park, (2) Iron Horse Plateau, (4) Bay Ridge Trail, (5) Pleasanton Ridge, and (6) San JoaquCliffs Trail. Few potential direct impacts are anticipated given that malternative is within or directly adjacent to existing transportation righresources exist in areas where the alignment alternative is not adjaceexisting right-of-way. Exceptions include the Augustin-Bernal Park. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

H. ALTAMONT PASS ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES (ALTAMONT PASS TO UPRR OR BNSF CONNECTION) All information presented is for the area from the Altamont Pass to the UPRR or BNSF connection. This alternative is shand described in Table 7.3-8. 

Table 7.3-8 

Altamont Pass Alignment Alternatives: Altamont Pass to UPRR or BNSF Connection 

Tracy Downtown (BNSF 

Connection) 

Tracy Downtown (UPRR 

Connection) 

Tracy ACE (BNSF 

Connection) 

Physical/Operational Characteristics Alignment Alternative Description 

The I-680/I-580/UPRR alignment alternative would begin at the Altamont Pass, traverse the Pass south of I-580, and parallel the UPRR line in Tracy to Downtown, with connections east of Tracy to the BNSF N/S line. The station option considered in this segment is Tracy (Downtown). 

The I-680/I-580/UPRR alignment alternative would begin at the Altamont Pass, traverse the Pass south of I580, and parallel the UPRR line in Tracy to Downtown, with connections east of Tracy to the UPRR N/S line. The station option considered in this segment is Tracy (Downtown). 

The Patterson Pass/UPRR alignment alternative would begin at the Altamont Pass and would travel southeast along the southern UPRR line (ACE Line) to the Tracy ACE station, with connections east to the BNSF N/S line. The station option considered in this segment is Tracy (ACE). 

The aligbegand alonline ACE conUPRoptseg

Length 53.58 mi (86.22 km) 36.26 mi (58.36 km) 53.98 mi (86.87 km) 29.Cost (dollars) $1.84 billion $1.93 billion $1.95 billion $1.Travel Time 14 min NB 

15 min SB 

12 min NB 11 min SB 

15 min NB 16 min SB 

13 12 

Ridership Longer travel times would 

result in somewhat less ridership potential than the UPRR Alternatives. Tracy Downtown and Tracy ACE alternatives using the BNSF would be about the same. 

Would provide high ridership and revenue potential for the Altamont Pass Alternatives. Tracy Downtown and Tracy Ace alternatives using the UPRR would be about the same. 

 Increased travel times would result in somewhat less ridership potential than UPRR Alternatives. 

Woand the 

Constructability Primarily at-grade 

alignment with extensive earthwork at western end. 

Primarily at-grade alignment with extensive earthwork at western end. 

Primarily at-grade alignment with extensive earthwork at western end. 

Primwith wes
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

HST Al

Altamont Pass Al

(Altamont Pass to UPRR O

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.3-8 

Altamont Pass Alignment Alternatives: Altamont Pass to UPRR or BNSF Connection 

Tracy Downtown (BNSF 

Connection) 

Tracy Downtown (UPRR 

Connection) 

Tracy ACE (BNSF 

Connection) 

Operational Issues Northbound 

Average speed135.5 mph (225.9 kph) Maximum speed: 210 mph (350 kph) Southbound Average speed: 141.9 mph (236.5 kph) Maximum speed: 210 mph (350 kph) 

Northbound Average speed: 127.2 mph (212 kph) Maximum speed: 210 mph (350 kph) Southbound Average speed: 125.29 mph (208.7 kph) Maximum speed: 210 mph (350 kph) 

Northbound Average speed: 136.1 mph (226.8 kph) Maximum speed: 210 mph (350 kph) Southbound Average speed: 147.7 mph (237.8 kph) Maximum speed: 210 mph (350 kph) 

NorAve(21Max(35SouAve(20Max(35

Potential Environmental Impacts Travel Conditions This alignment alternative would provide direct HST service 

to downtown Tracy. The alignment alternative would provide a safer, more reliable, energy-efficient intercity mode along the I-580 Corridor while improving the safety, reliability, and performance of the regional commuter service. This alignment alternative would greatly increase the capacity for intercity and commuter travel and reduce existing automobile traffic flow and reduce air pollution at 

existing rail crossings. The fully grade-separated UPRR rail corridor in the Tracy Area would improve local traffic. 

This alignment alternative would provsouthern Tracy area at the current ACalignment alternative would provide a energy-efficient intercity mode along improving the safety, reliability, and pregional commuter service. This aligngreatly increase the capacity for interand reduce existing automobile traffic pollution at existing rail crossings. 

Noise and Vibration:i High, 

medium, and low potential impacts 

Low potential of noise impacts. Low potential of vibration impacts due to proximity of residential land use along the Tri-Valley segment. There would be an increase in noise levels due to increased frequency of trains. There would be a reduction in noise levels 

Low potential of noise impacts. Low potential of vibration impacts due to proximity of alignment to industrial/commercial land uses. There would be an increase in noise levels due to increased frequency of trains. There would be a reduction in noise levels due 

Medium potential of noise impacts. Low potential of vibration impacts due to proximity of residential land use along the Tri-Valley. There would be an increase in noise levels due to increased frequency of trains. There would be a reduction in noise levels due to the elimination of horn noise and 

MedimpLow impresthe Thein nincrtraired
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.3-8 

Altamont Pass Alignment Alternatives: Altamont Pass to UPRR or BNSF Connection 

Tracy Downtown (BNSF 

Connection) 

Tracy Downtown (UPRR 

Connection) 

Tracy ACE (BNSF 

Connection) 

due to the elimination of horn noise and gate noise from existing services as a result of the grade separations at some existing grade crossings. 

to the elimination of horn noise and gate noise from existing services as a result of the grade separations at some existing grade crossings. 

gate noise from existing services as a result of the grade separations at some existing grade crossings. 

to tnoisexisof tsomcros

Land Use and Planning, Communities and Neighborhoods, Property, and Environmental Justice 

Compatibility: The majority of this alignment alternative is compatible (medium rating), given that it is within or immediately adjacent to an existing major rail or highway rights-of-way. Environmental Justice: This alignment alternative has a low environmental justice impact rating. Community: This alignment alternative would not affect community cohesion, given that it is within or immediately adjacent to an existing major rail or highway rights-of-way. Property: This alignment alternative has the potential for low to medium property impacts. 

Compatibility: The majority of this alignment alternative is compatible (medium rating), given that it is within or immediately adjacent to an existing major rail or highway rightsof-way. Environmental Justice: This alignment alternative has a low environmental justice impact rating. Community: This alignment alternative would not affect community cohesion, given that it is within or immediately adjacent to an existing major rail or highway rights-of-way. Property: This alignment alternative has the potential for low to medium property impacts. 

Compatibility: The majority of these are compatible (medium rating), giveimmediately adjacent to an existing mrights-of-way. Environmental Justice: These alignmlow environmental justice impact ratinCommunity: These alignment alternacommunity cohesion, given that it is wadjacent to an existing major rail or hProperty: These alignment alternativlow to medium property impacts. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.3-8 

Altamont Pass Alignment Alternatives: Altamont Pass to UPRR or BNSF Connection 

Tracy Downtown (BNSF 

Connection) 

Tracy Downtown (UPRR 

Connection) 

Tracy ACE (BNSF 

Connection) 

Aesthetics and Visual Resources: General impacts and rating.

Includes a new at-grade corridor from summit to I580, an elevated crossing of I-580, an at-grade alignment through Tracy, an at-grade alignment in median of SR 120, and a new at-grade corridor from SR 99 to BNSF. Overall low visual impact. 

Includes a new at-grade corridor from summit to I580, and elevated crossing of I-580, an at-grade alignment through Tracy, and an at-grade alignment in median of SR 120. Overall low visual impact. 

Includes a new at-grade corridor from summit to I-580, an elevated crossing of I-580, an at-grade alignment along UPRR, an at-grade alignment in median of SR 120, and a new at-grade corridor from SR 99 to BNSF. Overall low visual impact. 

Inccor580I-58aligan melow 

Farmlands:ii Ac (ha) potentially 

affected

Farmland: 446 ac (180.5 ha) Would have greatest potential impacts on farmlands including prime farmland. Impact up to 204 ac (82.4 ha) of prime farmland. 

Farmland: 243 ac (98.2 ha) Less potential for farmland impacts than either the Tracy Downtown (BNSF Connection) or Tracy ACE (BNSF Connection). Impact up to 152 ac (61.4 ha) of prime farmland. 

Farmland: 442 ac (178.7 ha) Similar farmland impacts as the Tracy Downtown (BNSF Connection). Impact up to 162 ac (65.6 ha) of prime farmland. 

FarWoimpinclImpha) 

Cultural Resources and Paleontological Resources:iii

Potential presence of historical resources in area of potential effect

There are 14 known cultural resources. Includes previously recorded archaeological and architectural resources. The majority of the architectural resources are located south of Tracy. 

There are 11 known cultural resources. Includes previously recorded archaeological and architectural resources, including a railroad trestle, industrial warehouses, and residential properties. The majority of the architectural resources are located south of Tracy. 

There are 15 known cultural resources. Includes previously recorded archaeological and architectural resources. Recorded resources include World War II era buildings. The majority of the architectural resources are located south of Lathrop. 

TheresoThiinclarcarcRecWoThe arcloca
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.3-8 

Altamont Pass Alignment Alternatives: Altamont Pass to UPRR or BNSF Connection 

Tracy Downtown (BNSF 

Connection) 

Tracy Downtown (UPRR 

Connection) 

Tracy ACE (BNSF 

Connection) 

Hydrology and WaterResources:iv Potential impacts 

and associated ac (ha) of floodplains, and linear ft (m) of streams within potential impact study areas, ac (ha) lakes/other water bodies within study areas. 

Floodplains: 41.4 ac (16.75 ha) direct/ 136 ac (55.04 ha) indirect Streams: 6,228 linear ft (1,898.3linear m) direct/ 19,257 linear ft (5,869.5 linear m) indirect Lakes/Waterbodies: 2.3 ac (0.93ha) direct/ 7.6 ac (3.08 ha) indirect Potentially affect at least 14 unnamed and named water resources, including California Aqueduct, Delta Mendota Canal, Upper Main Canal, San Joaquin River, Paradise Cut, Tom Paine Slough, Lone Tree Creek, and Avena Drain. Where either at-grade or on embankments, construction would include culverts sized appropriately to convey anticipated storm flows and to minimize ponding. 

Floodplains: 32 ac (12.95 ha) direct/ 99.6 ac (40.31 ha) indirect Streams: 5,384 linear ft (1,641.0 linear m) direct/ 15,605 linear ft (4,756.4 linear m) indirect Lakes/Waterbodies: 2.3 ac (0.93 ha) direct/ 7.6 ac (3.08 ha) indirect Potentially affect at least 9 of the water resources identified in the Tracy Downtown (BNSF Connection) alignment alternative, excluding Lone Tree Creek, Avena Drain, and the Main Drain Canal. Where either at-grade or on embankments, construction would include culverts sized appropriately to convey anticipated storm flows and to minimize ponding. 

Floodplains: 48.9 ac (19.79 ha) direct/ 154.5 ac 962.53 ha) indirect Streams: 7,390 linear ft (2,252.5 linear m) direct/ 24,468 linear ft (7,457.8 linear m) indirect Lakes/Waterbodies: 3 ac (1.2 ha) direct/ 13 ac (5.26 ha) indirect Potentially affect at least 14 unnamed and named water resources, including California Aqueduct, Delta Mendota Canal, Upper Main Canal, San Joaquin River, Paradise Cut, Tom Paine Slough, Lone Tree Creek, and Avena Drain. Where either at-grade or on embankments, construction would include culverts sized appropriately to convey anticipated storm flows and to minimize ponding. 

Flooha) ha) Stre(1,613,lineLak(0.8(3.7Potof tidenStaalteTreand Whemwouappantto m
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.3-8 

Altamont Pass Alignment Alternatives: Altamont Pass to UPRR or BNSF Connection 

Tracy Downtown (BNSF 

Connection) 

Tracy Downtown (UPRR 

Connection) 

Tracy ACE (BNSF 

Connection) 

Biological Resources Including Wetlands Ac (ha) of wetland, linear ft (m) of nonwetland waters, and number of special-status species within potential impact study areas 

Wetlandsv: 4.36 ac (1.76 

ha) direct/ 158.2 ac (64.02 ha) indirect Non-Wetland Waters: 6,291 linear ft (1,917.5 linear m) Species: 18 special-status plant and 27 special-status wildlife species This alignment alternative would have potential to directly impact the most wetlands. Potential species impacts include valley elderberry longhorn beetle, vernal pool tadpole shrimp, riparian (San Joaquin Valley) woodrat, riparian brush rabbit, and San Joaquin kit fox. Potentially result in a barrier to wildlife movement. Placement along transportation corridors would minimize impacts. 

Wetlandsv: 4.16 ac (1.68 

ha) direct/ 155.4 ac (62.91 ha) indirect Non-Wetland Waters: 7,504 linear ft (2,287.2 linear m) Species: 22 special-status plant and 27 special-status wildlife species This alignment alternative would have potential to impact the most plant species. Potential species impacts include Greene’s tuctoria, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, vernal pool tadpole shrimp, riparian (San Joaquin Valley) woodrat, riparian brush rabbit, and San Joaquin kit fox. Potentially result in a barrier to wildlife movement. Placement along transportation corridors would minimize impacts. 

Wetlandsv: 3.63 ac (1.47 ha) direct/ 312.2 ac (126.33 ha) indirect Non-Wetland Waters: 7,678 linear ft (2,340.3 linear m) Species: 21 special-status plant and 27 special-status wildlife species This alignment alternative would have potential to indirectly impact the most wetlands and waters. Potential species impacts include Greene’s tuctoria, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, vernal pool tadpole shrimp, riparian (San Joaquin Valley) woodrat, riparian brush rabbit, and San Joaquin kit fox. Potentially result in a barrier to wildlife movement. Placement along transportation corridors would minimize impacts. 

WedireindNonlineSpeplanwildThiwoudirewetPotincllongtad(SawoorabfoxbarPlactranwou

Fault Crossings Vernalis (Active) – At Grade Vernalis (Active) – At Grade 

San Joaquin (Potentially Active) – At 

Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources:4 Number of resources rated high (potential direct effects) 

No public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges within 0–150 ft (46 m) from center 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

I. TRANS BAY CROSSING: TRANSBAY TUBE (OAKLAND - SAN FRANCISCO) 

All information presented is for a potential transbay tube connection Oakland and San Francisco. This alternative is shodescribed in Table 7.3-9. 

Table 7.3-9 

Trans Bay Crossings: Oakland to San Francisco 

Tran Bay Crossing – Transbay Transit Center Trans Bay Crossing 

Physical/Operational Characteristics Alignment Alternative Description This alignment alternative would be in a tube under the San 

Francisco Bay between San Francisco and Oakland. It would connect between Oakland and the Transbay Transit Center. 

This alignment alternative wouSan Francisco Bay between SaIt would connect between Oak

and King Station in San Francis

Length24 7.28 mi (11.71 km) 6.87 mi (11.06 km) Cost25 (dollars) $5.36 billion $5.20 billion Travel Time26 6 min 6 min Ridership Would have the highest ridership potential for the Trans Bay 

crossing between San Francisco and Oakland. 

Would have less ridership poteTransbay Transit Center altern

Constructability Difficult and costly construction on Bay floor. Difficult and costly construction Operational Issues Average speed =66.5 mph (110.9 kph) 

Maximum speed =100.2 mph (167 kph) . 

Average speed = 69.3 mph (11Maximum speed =105 mph (1. 

Potential Environmental Impacts Travel Conditions Travel time for this connection would be about the same as 

to 4th and King. This alternative would provide the highest 

connectivity and accessibility with the terminus at the Transbay Transit Center. 

Travel time for this connection same as the Transbay Transit 

Noise and Vibration:i High, 

medium, or low potential impacts 

Low potential of noise impacts. Low potential of vibration impacts. 

Low potential of noise impactsLow potential of vibration impa

24 Includes West Oakland terminal station. 25 Includes West Oakland terminal station. 26 Includes West Oakland terminal station. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

HST Al

(Oakla

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.3-9 

Trans Bay Crossings: Oakland to San Francisco 

Tran Bay Crossing – Transbay Transit Center Trans Bay Crossing 

Land Use and Planning, Communities and Neighborhoods, Property, and Environmental Justice 

Compatibility: The majority of this alignment alternative is 

compatible (high rating), given that it is within or immediately adjacent to an existing major rail and within industrial land uses. Environmental Justice: This alignment alternative has medium environmental justice impact rating. Community: This alignment alternative would not affect community cohesion, given that it is in tunnel. Property: The potential for property impacts in this alignment alternative would be low to residential and nonresidential properties because it would be below grade.

Compatibility: The majority of alternative is compatible (high within or immediately adjacent and within industrial land usesEnvironmental Justice: This almedium environmental justice Community: This alignment alaffect community cohesion, givProperty: The potential for proalignment alternative would be nonresidential properties becaubelow grade.

Aesthetics and Visual Resources: General impacts and rating. 

Underground alignment. No visual impact. 

Cultural Resources and Paleontological Resources:iii

Potential presence of historical resources in area of potential effect 

There are 3 known cultural resources. The terrestrial portions are highly sensitive for both historical archaeological deposits and architectural resources. The area likely includes historic artifacts from the Gold Rush period through the 1906 earthquake and fire. 

There are no known cultural reThe terrestrial portions are highistorical archaeological deposresources. The area likely inclfrom the Gold Rush period throearthquake and fire. 

Hydrology and Water Resources:iv

Potential impacts and associated ac (ha) of floodplains and linear ft (m) of streams within potential impact study areas, ac (ha) lakes/other water bodies within study areas. 

Floodplains: 0.0 ac (0.0 ha) direct/ 0.0 ac (0.0 ha) indirect Streams: 0.0 linear ft (0.0 m) direct/ 0.0 linear ft (0.0 linear m) indirect Lakes/Waterbodies: 36.5 ac (14.77 h) direct/ 235.5 ac (95.31 ha) indirect Extend from the Oakland Inner Harbor to the city of San Francisco, crossing San Francisco Bay and impacting the most area of the Bay. Coordination would be required with the USACE under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and the California Coastal Commission. 

Floodplains: 0.0 ac (0.0 ha) dindirect Streams: 0.0 linear ft (0.0 m) linear m) indirect Lakes/Waterbodies: 35.4 ac (1(92.27 ha) indirect Extend from the Oakland InneSan Francisco, crossing San Frless area of the Bay. Coordinawith the USACE under Section Harbors Act and the California 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.3-9 

Trans Bay Crossings: Oakland to San Francisco 

Tran Bay Crossing – Transbay Transit Center Trans Bay Crossing 

Biological Resources Including Wetlands Ac (ha) of wetland, linear ft (m) of non-wetland waters, and number of special-status species within potential impact study areas 

Wetlandsv: 22.8 ac (9.24 ha) direct/ 1,366.3 (552.94 ha) 

indirect Bay Waters: 22.1 ac (8.94 ha) Species: 1 special-status plant species This alignment alternative would have the potential to affect more wetlands, Bay waters, and the sensitive eel grass habitat. Sensitive plant species include the beach layia. Crossing of the Bay would be subject to USACE, CDFG, and BCDC permit process. 

Wetlandsv: 22.0 ac (8.92 ha) d(520.65 ha) indirect Bay Waters: 20.07 ac (8.12 haSpecies: 1 special-status plant This alignment alternative wouaffect slightly less wetlands animpacts to sensitive eel grass hspecies include the beach layiawould be subject to USACE, CDprocess. 

Fault Crossings None Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources:4Number of resources rated high potential direct effects 

Public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges within 0–150 ft (46 m) from center of alignment alternative include South Park. Few direct impacts are anticipated given that the alignment would be in tunnel as it passes South Park. 

No public parks, recreation lan

refuges within 0–150 ft (46 m) alignment alternative. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

J. TRANS BAY CROSSING: DUMBARTON BRIDGE OR TUBE 

All information presented is for a potential Dumbarton bridge or transbay tube. This alternative is shown in Figure 7.3-

Table 7.3-10. 

Table 7.3-10 

Trans Bay Crossing: Dumbarton 

Dumbarton (High 

Bridge) 

Dumbarton (Low 

Bridge) Dumbarton (Tube) 

Fremont Central 

Park (High Bridge) 

Fremon

Park (Low 

Physical/Operational Characteristics Alignment Alternative Description27

This alignment alternative would cross the San Francisco Bay in the Dumbarton Corridor with a high bridge over the existing navigational channel. It would travel generally east to the Shinn/Niles area. 

This alignment alternative would cross the San Francisco Bay in the Dumbarton Corridor with draw bridges for the existing navigational channel. It would travel generally east to the Shinn/Niles area. 

This alignment alternative would cross the San Francisco Bay in a tube in the Dumbarton Corridor. It would travel generally east to the Shinn/Niles area. 

This alignment alternative would cross the San Francisco Bay in the Dumbarton Corridor with a high bridge over the existing navigational channel. It would travel south and east through a power easement and then northeast with a tunnel under Stevenson Boulevard to the Niles area. 

This alignmalternative cross the SFrancisco Dumbartowith draw for the exinavigationchannel. Itravel souteast throupower easand then nwith a tunStevenson to the Nilearea. 

Length 19.06 mi (30.67 km) 20.01 mi (32.21 km) 19.06 mi (30.67 km) 20.11 mi (32.36 km) 21.71 mi (Cost28 (dollars) $1.93 billion $1.53 billion $2.32 billion $2.73 billion $2.24 billioTravel Time 11 min (Niles Jct.-

Redwood City) 

11 min (Niles Jct.-Redwood City) 

11 min (Niles Jct.-Redwood City) 

11 min (Niles Jct.-Redwood City) 

11 min (NRedwood 

Ridership About the same. About the same. About the same. About the same. About the 27 Golden State option ends about 2.5 mi (4.0 km) southeast of Golden State station (at Beale Avenue). Truxton option ends at Truxton station (at Union 28 Segment cost and length begins about 2.5 mi (4.0 km) southeast of Fresno downtown Station (East Jensen Avenue). 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.3-10 

Trans Bay Crossing: Dumbarton 

Dumbarton (High 

Bridge) 

Dumbarton (Low 

Bridge) Dumbarton (Tube) 

Fremont Central 

Park (High Bridge) 

Fremon

Park (Low 

Constructability Considerable 

construction issues associated with urban construction, including aerial structures through Fremont and a new “high” bridge trans bay crossing at Dumbarton. Constructing a new bridge crossing along the Dumbarton corridor would involve major construction activities in sensitive wetlands, saltwater marshes, and aquatic habitat. Special construction methods and mitigations would be required. 

Considerable construction issues associated with urban construction, including aerial structures through Fremont and fewer construction issues with a new “low” bridge Trans Bay crossing at Dumbarton. Constructing a new bridge crossing along the Dumbarton corridor would involve major construction activities in sensitive wetlands, saltwater marshes, and aquatic habitat. Special construction methods and mitigations would be required. 

Considerable construction issues associated with urban construction, including aerial structures through Fremont and greater construction issues with a new “tube” Trans Bay crossing at Dumbarton. Constructing a new tube crossing along the Dumbarton corridor would involve major construction activities in sensitive wetlands, saltwater marshes, and aquatic habitat. Special construction methods and mitigations would be required. 

Considerable construction issues associated with urban construction, including aerial structures through Fremont, tunneling under Fremont Central Park, and a new “high” bridge Trans Bay crossing at Dumbarton. Constructing a new bridge crossing along the Dumbarton corridor would involve major construction activities in sensitive wetlands, saltwater marshes, and aquatic habitat. Special construction methods and mitigations would be required. 

Consideraconstructioassociated urban conincluding astructures Fremont, tunder FremCentral Panew “low” Trans Bay at DumbarConstructibridge croalong the Dumbartowould invoconstructioactivities iwetlands, marshes, aaquatic haSpecial comethods amitigationrequired. 

Operational Issues 

Average speed: 98.9 mph (164.9 kph) Maximum speed: 165 mph (275 kph)

Average speed: 98.9 mph (164.9 kph) Maximum speed: 165 mph (275 kph) With the “low-bridge” bay crossing option, HST service would potentially be interrupted, which would adversely 

Average speed: 98.9 mph (164.9 kph) Maximum speed: 165 mph (275 kph)

Average speed: 113.2 mph (188.7 kph) Maximum speed: 165 mph (275 kph)

Average sp113.2 mph kph) Maximum 165 mph (With the “bridge” baoption, HSwould poteinterrupted
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

HST Al

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.3-10 

Trans Bay Crossing: Dumbarton 

Dumbarton (High 

Bridge) 

Dumbarton (Low 

Bridge) Dumbarton (Tube) 

Fremont Central 

Park (High Bridge) 

Fremon

Park (Low 

impact the reliability of the entire system. 

would advimpact the of the enti

Potential Environmental Impacts Travel Conditions About the same as the Fremont Central Park Alternatives. About the same as the Dumbarton BNoise and Vibration:i High, medium, and low potential impacts 

High potential of noise impacts. High potential of vibration impacts. High potential of noise impacts in urban areas where the alignment is predominately on aerial structure (Fremont). 

High potential of noise impacts. High potential of vibration impacts. High potential of noise impacts in urban areas where the alignment is predominately on aerial structure (Fremont). 

High potential of noise impacts. High potential of vibration impacts. High potential of noise impacts in urban areas where the alignment is predominately on aerial structure (Fremont). 

High potential of noise impacts. High potential of vibration impacts.  High potential of noise impacts in urban areas where the alignment is predominately on aerial structure (Fremont). 

High potennoise impaHigh potenvibration iHigh potennoise impaurban areathe alignmpredominaaerial stru(Fremont)

Land Use and Planning, Communities and Neighborhoods, Property, and Environmental Justice 

Compatibility: The majority of this alignment alternative is compatible (medium rating) with multifamily, residential, industrial and existing major rail right-of-way. It exhibits a low to medium compatibility where it crosses the San Francisco Bay, in Fremont along the more narrow Centerville line, in the Shinn area. Environmental Justice: This alignment alternative has medium 

Compatibility: The majority of this alignment alternative is compatible (medium rating) with multi-family, residential, industrial and existing major rail right-of-way. It exhibits a low to medium compatibility where it crosses the San Francisco Bay, in Fremont along the more narrow Centerville line, in the Shinn area. Environmental 

Compatibility: The majority of this alignment alternative is compatible (medium rating) with multi-family, residential, industrial and existing major rail right-of-way. It exhibits a low to medium compatibility where it crosses the San Francisco Bay, in Fremont along the more narrow Centerville line, in the Shinn area. Environmental 

Compatibility: The majority of this alignment alternative is compatible (medium rating) with multifamily, residential, industrial and existing major rail right-ofway. It exhibits a low to medium compatibility where it crosses the San Francisco Bay, in Fremont along the more narrow Centerville line, in the Shinn area. Environmental Justice: 

Compatibimajority oalignment alternative compatible rating) witfamily, resindustrial aexisting mright-of-waexhibits a medium compatibilit crosses Francisco Fremont amore narrCenterville the Shinn 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.3-10 

Trans Bay Crossing: Dumbarton 

Dumbarton (High 

Bridge) 

Dumbarton (Low 

Bridge) Dumbarton (Tube) 

Fremont Central 

Park (High Bridge) 

Fremon

Park (Low 

environmental justice impact rating. Community: This alignment alternative would not affect community cohesion, given that it is within or immediately adjacent to an existing major rail or highway rights-of-way. Property: This alignment alternative has the potential for medium property impacts. 

Justice: This alignment alternative has medium environmental justice impact rating. Community: This alignment alternative would not affect community cohesion, given that it is within or immediately adjacent to an existing major rail or highway rights-ofway. Property: This alignment alternative has the potential for medium property impacts. 

Justice: This alignment alternative has medium environmental justice impact rating. Community: This alignment alternative would not affect community cohesion, given that it is within or immediately adjacent to an existing major rail or highway rights-ofway. Property: This alignment alternative has the potential for medium property impacts. 

This alignment alternative has medium environmental justice impact rating. Community: This alignment alternative would not affect community cohesion, given that it is within or immediately adjacent to an existing major rail or highway rights-ofway. Property: This alignment alternative has the potential for high property impacts, given that additional right-of-way would be required. 

EnvironmeJustice: Talignment alternative medium environmejustice imprating. Communitalignment alternative not affect community cohesion, it is within immediateadjacent texisting mhighway rway. Property: alignment alternative potential fproperty imgiven that right-of-wabe require

Aesthetics and Visual Resources: General impacts and rating. 

Medium visual impact from the bridge, on the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge and on the Centerville alignment across Fremont. 

Low visual impact from bridge and medium impacts on Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge and the Centerville alignment 

No visual impact from tube and a medium impact on the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge and the Centerville alignment 

Medium visual impact from bridge and on Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge and through Newark. 

Low visuafrom bridgmedium vimpacts on Edwards SFrancisco National WRefuge an
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.3-10 

Trans Bay Crossing: Dumbarton 

Dumbarton (High 

Bridge) 

Dumbarton (Low 

Bridge) Dumbarton (Tube) 

Fremont Central 

Park (High Bridge) 

Fremon

Park (Low 

across Fremont. across Fremont. Newark. 

Cultural Resources and Paleontological Resources:iii

Potential presence of historical resources in area of potential effect 

There are 4 known cultural resources. Archaeological resources include prehistoric sites associated with burials, and historic sites from early 1900s industrial activities. 

There are 4 known cultural resources. Archaeological resources include prehistoric sites associated with burials, and historic sites from early 1900s industrial activities. 

There are 4 known cultural resources. Archaeological resources include prehistoric sites associated with burials, and historic sites from early 1900s industrial activities. 

There are no known cultural resources. No recorded resources were identified in the records search. 

There are cultural reNo recorderesources identified records se

Hydrology and Water Resources:iv

Potential impacts and associated linear ft (linear m) of floodplains and linear ft (m) of streams within potential impact study areas, ac (ha) lakes/other water bodies within study areas. 

Floodplains: 47.4 ac (19.18 ha) direct/ 162.1 ac (65.60 ha) indirect Streams: 1,028 linear ft (313.3 linear m) direct/ 3,627 linear ft (1,105.5 linear m) indirect Lakes/Waterbodies: 37.3 ac (15.10 ha) direct/ 143.9 ac (58.24 ha) indirect Less water resource impacts compared to Fremont Central Park due primarily to the shorter length. Coordination would be required with the USACE under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and 

Floodplains: 47.4 ac (19.18 ha) direct162.1 ac (65.60 ha) indirect Streams: 1,028 linear ft (313.3 linear m) direct/ 3,627 linear ft (1,105.5 linear m) indirect Lakes/Waterbodies: 37.3 ac (15.10 ha) direct/143.9 ac (58.24 ha) indirect Less water resource impacts compared to Fremont Central Park due primarily to the shorter length. Coordination would be required with the USACE under Section 10 of the 

Floodplains: 47.ac (19.18ha)direct/ 162.1 ac (65.60 ha) indirect Streams: 1,028 linear ft (313.3 linear m) direct/ 3,627 linear ft (1,105.5 linear m) indirect Lakes/Waterbodies: 37.3 ac (15.10 ha) direct/ 143.9 ac (58.24 ha) indirect Less water resource impacts compared to Fremont Central Park due primarily to the shorter length. Coordination would be required with the USACE under Section 10 of the 

Floodplains: 71.7 ac (29.02ha) direct/ 258.7 ac (104.70 ha) indirect Streams: 2,041 linear ft (622.1 linear m) direct/ 8,301 linear ft (2,530.1 linear m) indirect Lakes/Waterbodies: 46.3 ac (18.74 ha) direct/ 179.2 ac (72.52 ha) indirect Longer length results in additional impacts compared to Dumbarton options. Coordination would be required with the USACE under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors 

Floodplain(29.02 ha) 258.7 ac (ha) indirecStream : ft (622.1 ldirect/ 8,3ft (2,530.1 indirect Lakes/Wat46.3 ac (1direct/ 179(72.52 ha) Longer lenresults in aimpacts coDumbartoCoordinatibe requireUSACE unSection 10 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.3-10 

Trans Bay Crossing: Dumbarton 

Dumbarton (High 

Bridge) 

Dumbarton (Low 

Bridge) Dumbarton (Tube) 

Fremont Central 

Park (High Bridge) 

Fremon

Park (Low 

the California Coastal Commission. 

Rivers and Harbors Act and the California Coastal Commission. 

Rivers and Harbors Act and the California Coastal Commission. 

Act and the California Coastal Commission. 

Rivers and Act and thCalifornia Commissio

Biological Resources Including Wetlands Ac (ha) of wetland, linear ft (m) of non-wetland waters, and number of special-status species within potential impact study areas 

Wetlandsv: 33.9 ac (13.7 ha) direct/ 1,641.2 ac (664.2 ha) indirect 

Bay Waters: 2,361 linear ft (719.6 linear m) Species: 15 special-status plant and 21 special-status wildlife species Compared to the Fremont Central Park alignment alternative, this alignment alternative would have the least potential direct impact on wetlands, but the most indirect impacts. Potential species impacts include the San Mateo thorn-mint, white-rayed pentachaeta, brown pelican, California clapper rail, California least tern, and the salt marsh harvest mouse. Crossing of the Bay would be subject to USACE, CDFG, and BCDC permit process. 

Wetlandsv: 55.35 ac (22.4 ha) direc

Bay Waters: 3,117 linear ft (950.1 liSpecies: 16 special-status plant and Compared to the Dumbarton alignmalignment alternative would have thwetlands, but the least indirect impainclude the San Mateo thorn-mint, wspineflower, vernal pool tadpole shrbrown pelican, California clapper raimarsh harvest mouse. Crossing of USACE, CDFG, and BCDC permit pro

Fault Crossings Buried Trace of Unnamed Fault (Potentially Active) - At Grade 

Silver Creek (Potentially Active) - At Grade Hayward (Active) - Above Grade Mission (Potentially Active) - At Grade 

Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources:4

Ac (ha) of parkland near HST right-ofway 

Public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges 0–150 ft (46 m) from center of alignment alternative include (1) Kelly Park, (2) Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge, (3) Newark Civic Center Park, (4) Vallejo Mill Historical Park, and (5) Alameda Creek Trail. Few potential direct impacts are anticipated given that much of 

the alignment alternative is within or directly adjacent to existing 

transportation rights-of-way. 

Public parks, recreation lands, wildli(46 m) from center of alignment altDon Edwards San Francisco Bay NatPark, (4) Fremont Central Park, (5) 

Park. As compared to the “Dumbarimpacts are anticipated given that a alignment alternative requires a new Edwards San Francisco Bay Nationa
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

K. CENTRAL VALLEY ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES All information presented is for potential Central Valley alignment alternatives. This alternative is shown in Figure 7.3-1Table 7.3-11. 

Table 7.3-11 

Central Valley Alignment Alternatives 

BNSF – UPRR BNSF N/S UPRR N/S BNSF (Castle AFB) 

UPRR- BNS(Castle AFB

Physical/Operational Characteristics Alignment Alternative Description29

This alignment alternative would travel from North Stockton South to the UPRR Connection, along the BNSF line South to Amtrak Briggsmore, then south to the UPRR/BNSF Connection, along the UPRR through Atwater to Downtown Merced, South to BNSF Connection, along the BNSF South to the Henry Miller Wye. Potential stations are at Modesto (Briggsmore) and Merced (Downtown). 

This alignment alternative would connect with either the Altamont or Pacheco Pass alignments. This north-south alignment would link the Bay Area to Central Valley population centers, Sacramento, and southern California. Potential stations are at Modesto (Briggsmore) and Merced (Downtown). 

This alignment alternative would connect with either the Altamont or Pacheco Pass alignments. This north-south alignment would link the Bay Area to Central Valley population centers, Sacramento, and southern California. Potential stations are at Modesto (Downtown) and Merced (Downtown). 

This alignment alternative would be on BNSF line from Stockton South to Amtrak Briggsmore, would transition to the UPRR/BNSF Connection, then to Castle AFB, travel South to the BNSF connect, follow BNSF South of Castle to the UPRR Connection, and then to the Henry Miller Wye. Potential stations are at Modesto (Briggsmore) and Castle AFB. 

This alignment alternative would travel south on tUPRR through Modesto to the BConnection, on tBNSF N/S line to Castle AFB, then south to the connection to the UPRR, then on thCastle Connectiothe Henry Miller Potential station locations are at Modesto (Briggsmore) and Castle AFB. 

29 Golden State option ends about 2.5 mi (4.0 km) southeast of Golden State station (at Beale Avenue). Truxton option ends at Truxton station (at Union 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.3-11 

Central Valley Alignment Alternatives 

BNSF – UPRR BNSF N/S UPRR N/S BNSF (Castle AFB) 

UPRR- BNS(Castle AFB

Length 92.99 mi (149.65 

km) 

100.38 mi (161.55 km) 

83.85 mi (134.95 km) 

92.42 mi (148.74 km) 86.52 mi (139.24 

km) 

Cost30 (dollars) $2.52 billion $2.6 billion $2.69 billion $2.27 billion $2.57 billion Travel Time (minutes) 

39 min (BypassFresno) 40 min (Bypass- Fresno) 42 min (Stockton- Fresno) 41 min (Bypass- Fresno) 44 min (Stockton

Fresno) 

Constructability Considerable 

construction issues associated with urban construction, including extensive aerial structures through Manteca, Modesto, and Merced. 

Considerably less urban alignment and associated aerial construction; however, substantially more grade separations are required for at-grade alignments. 

Considerable construction issues associated with urban construction, including extensive aerial structures through Manteca, Modesto, and Merced. 

Considerably less urban alignment and associated aerial construction; however, substantially more grade separations are required for at-grade alignments and additional length to serve Castle station. 

Considerably less urban alignment associated aerial construction; however, substantially morgrade separationrequired for at-galignments and additional length serve Castle stat

Ridership The BNSF-UPRR 

(used in the Pacheco “Base” Alternative) would have about the same ridership potential (about 0.3% less) as the UPRR for the Pacheco Pass, but is for forecast to have slightly less ridership potential (1.5%) for the Altamont Pass. 

The BNSF alignment alternative would have slightly less ridership potential than the BNSF-UPRR. 

The UPRR alignment alternative would have high ridership and revenue potential for both the Altamont Pass and Pacheco Pass alternatives. 

The BNSF Castle alignment alternative would have about the same ridership potential as the BNSF alternative. 

The UPRR-Castle alignment alternwould have abousame ridership potential as the Ualternatives for tAltamont Pass alternatives and slightly less potefor Pacheco Pass alternatives. 

30 Segment cost and length begins about 2.5 mi (4.0 km) southeast of Fresno downtown Station (East Jensen Avenue). 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

HST Al

Central Valley Al

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.3-11 

Central Valley Alignment Alternatives 

BNSF – UPRR BNSF N/S UPRR N/S BNSF (Castle AFB) 

UPRR- BNS(Castle AFB

Operational Issues 

Average speed: 176.7 mph (294.5 kph) Maximum speed: 198 mph (330 kph) 

Average speed: 176.1 mph (293.5 kph) Maximum speed: 198 mph (330 kph) 

Average speed: 169.7 mph (282.8 kph) Maximum speed: 198 mph (330 kph) 

Average speed: 171.8 mph (286.4 kph) Maximum speed: 198 mph (330 kph) 

Average speed: 166.2 mph (277.kph) Maximum speed198 mph (330 kp

Potential Environmental Impacts Travel Conditions This alignment 

alternative would provide direct HST service to Briggsmore and downtown Merced. The alignment alternative would provide a safer, more reliable, energy-efficient intercity mode in the Central Valley while potentially improving the safety, reliability, and performance of the regional commuter service. This alignment alternative would greatly increase the capacity for intercity and commuter travel and reduce existing automobile traffic flow and reduce air pollution at some existing rail crossings. 

This alignment alternative would provide direct HST service to Briggsmore and downtown Merced. The alignment alternative would provide a safer, more reliable, energy-efficient intercity mode in the Central Valley while potentially improving the safety, reliability, and performance of the regional commuter service. This alignment alternative would greatly increase the capacity for intercity and commuter travel and reduce existing automobile traffic flow and reduce air pollution at some existing rail crossings. 

This alignment alternative would provide direct HST service to downtown Modesto and downtown Merced. The alignment alternative would provide a safer, more reliable, energyefficient intercity mode in the Central Valley while potentially improving the safety, reliability, and performance of the regional commuter service. This alignment alternative would greatly increase the capacity for intercity and commuter travel and reduce existing automobile traffic flow and reduce air pollution at some existing rail crossings. 

This alignment alternative would provide direct HST service to Briggsmore and Castle AFB. The alignment alternative would provide a safer, more reliable, energyefficient intercity mode in the Central Valley while potentially improving the safety, reliability, and performance of the regional commuter service. The HST alignment alternative would greatly increase the capacity for intercity and commuter travel and reduce existing automobile traffic flow and reduce air pollution at some existing rail crossings. 

This alignment alternative would provide direct HSservice to Briggs& Castle AFB. Talignment alternwould provide a safer, more reliaenergy-efficient intercity mode in Central Valley whpotentially improthe safety, reliaband performance the regional commuter servicThis alignment alternative would greatly increase capacity for interand commuter trand reduce existautomobile traffiflow and reduce pollution at some existing rail crossings. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.3-11 

Central Valley Alignment Alternatives 

BNSF – UPRR BNSF N/S UPRR N/S BNSF (Castle AFB) 

UPRR- BNS(Castle AFB

Noise and Vibration:i High, 

medium, and low potential impacts 

Low potential of noise impacts in overall segment. Low potential of vibration impact. Medium potential of noise impacts in urban areas. Low potential of vibration impact in urban areas. Although a majority of the alignment alternative would have low potential impacts, the BNSFUPRR would have medium potential noise impacts in urban areas where the alignment is predominately on aerial structure. Express services travel at high speeds through these communities (220 mph [354 km]). 

Low potential of noise impacts in overall segment. Low potential of vibration impact. Medium potential of noise impacts in urban areas. Low potential of vibration impact in urban areas. 

Medium potential of noise impacts in overall segment. Medium potential of noise impacts in urban areas. Low potential of vibration impact in overall segment. Medium potential of vibration impact in urban areas. 

Medium potential of noise impacts in overall segment. Medium potential of noise impacts in urban areas. Low potential of vibration impact in overall segment. Medium potential of vibration impact in urban areas. 

Medium potentianoise impacts in overall segment. Medium potentianoise impacts in urban areas. Low potential of vibration impact overall segment. Medium potentiavibration impact urban areas. 

Land Use and Planning, Communities and Neighborhoods, Property, and Environmental Justice 

Compatibility: The majority of this alignment alternative is compatible (medium rating), given that it is within or immediately 

Compatibility: The majority of this alignment alternative is compatible (medium rating), given that it is within or immediately 

Compatibility: The majority of this alignment alternative is compatible (medium rating), given that it is within or immediately 

Compatibility: The majority of this alignment alternative is compatible (medium rating), given that it is within or immediately adjacent to an existing 

Compatibility: Tmajority of this alignment alternis compatible (medium rating)given that it is wor immediately 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.3-11 

Central Valley Alignment Alternatives 

BNSF – UPRR BNSF N/S UPRR N/S BNSF (Castle AFB) 

UPRR- BNS(Castle AFB

adjacent to an existing major rail right-of-way. Environmental Justice: This alignment alternative has a medium environmental justice impact rating except for Briggsmore and Chowchilla areas, where the rating is low. Community: This alignment alternative would not affect community cohesion, given that it is within or immediately adjacent to an existing major rail or highway rights-ofway. Property: This alignment alternative would have the potential for low to medium property impacts. 

adjacent to an existing major rail right-of-way. Environmental Justice: This alignment alternative has a medium environmental justice impact rating except for the Briggsmore and Chowchilla areas, where the rating is low. Community: This alignment alternative would not affect community cohesion, given that it is within or immediately adjacent to an existing major rail or highway rights-ofway. Property: This alignment alternative would have the potential for low to medium property impacts. 

adjacent to an existing major rail right-of-way. Environmental Justice: This alignment alternative has a medium environmental justice impact rating except for the Manteca and Modesto areas, where the rating is low. Community: This alignment alternative would not affect community cohesion, given that it is within or immediately adjacent to an existing major rail or highway rights-ofway. Property: This alignment alternative would have the potential for low to medium property impacts. 

major rail right-ofway. Environmental Justice: This alignment alternative has a medium environmental justice impact rating except for Briggsmore and Chowchilla areas, where the rating is low. Community: This alignment alternative would not affect community cohesion, given that it is within or immediately adjacent to an existing major rail or highway rights-of-way. Property: This alignment alternative would have the potential for low to medium property impacts. 

adjacent to an existing major raright-of-way. Environmental Justice: This alignment alternhas a medium environmental juimpact rating excfor the Manteca Modesto areas, where the rating low. Community: Thialignment alternwould not affect community cohegiven that it is wor immediately adjacent to an existing major rahighway rights-oway. Property: This alignment alternwould have the potential for low medium property impacts. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.3-11 

Central Valley Alignment Alternatives 

BNSF – UPRR BNSF N/S UPRR N/S BNSF (Castle AFB) 

UPRR- BNS(Castle AFB

Aesthetics and Visual Resources: General impacts and rating.

Includes elevated crossing of SR 4 viaduct in Stockton and SR 99 near French Camp, elevated structure through Escalon and Riverbank, and curve realignments at the Tuolumne and Chowchilla rivers. Overall low visual impact. 

Includes new alignment south of Lodi, elevated structure through Escalon and Riverbank, and curve realignments at the Tuolumne and Chowchilla rivers and south of Merced. Overall low visual impact. 

Includes elevated crossing of SR 4 viaduct in downtown Stockton, elevated crossing of SR 99 near French Camp, elevated structure through downtown Manteca, curve realignment in Modesto, elevated structures through downtown Turlock and Chowchilla. Overall low visual impact. 

Includes new alignment south of Lodi, elevated structures through Escalon and Riverbank, curve realignments at Tuolumne River, south of Merced, and the Chowchilla River, and new alignment into Castle AFB. Overall low visual impact. 

Includes elevated crossing of SR 4 viaduct in downtStockton, elevatecrossing of SR 99 near French Camelevated structurthrough Escalon Riverbank, curve realignments at Tuolumne and Chowchilla riversand a new alignminto Castle AFB. Overall low visuaimpact. 

Farmlands:ii Ac 

(ha) potentially affected

Farmland: 776 ac (314.0 ha) BNSF-UPRR alignment alternative would have less potential impacts on farmlands than the BNSF alignment alternative. Impact up to 326 ac (132 ha) of prime farmland. 

Farmland: 838 ac (339.1 ha) BNSF alignment alternative would potentially impact the most farmland, including the most prime farmland. Impact up to 407 ac (164.8 ha) of prime farmland. 

Farmland: 535 ac (216.4 ha) UPRR alignment alternative would have the least potential impacts on farmlands and prime farmland. Impact up to 269 ac (108.8 ha) of prime farmland. 

Farmland: 817 ac (330.8 ha) BNSF (Castle AFB) alignment alternative would potentially impact the second highest amount of farmland and prime farmland. Impact up to 386 ac (156.1 ha) of prime farmland. 

Farmland: 622 a(251.8 ha) UPRR-BNSF (CasAFB) alignment alternative would potentially impacmore farmlands the UPRR-BNSF. Transition to BNSmay have potentseverance impacImpact up to 331 (134.1 ha) of prifarmland. 

Cultural Resources and Paleontological Resources:iii

There are 28 known cultural resources. Generally follows existing railroad 

There are 17 known cultural resources. Generally follows existing railroad lines. 

There are 67 known cultural resources. Generally follows existing railroad 

There are 21 known cultural resources. Generally follows existing railroad lines. 

There are 24 knocultural resourceGenerally follows existing railroad 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.3-11 

Central Valley Alignment Alternatives 

BNSF – UPRR BNSF N/S UPRR N/S BNSF (Castle AFB) 

UPRR- BNS(Castle AFB

Potential presence of historical resources in area of potential effect 

lines. The majority of architectural resources identified were related to the railroad and residential properties dating from the 1920s. 

The majority of resources identified are located around Escalon and include portions of the ATSF railroad and residential properties dating from 1910. 

lines. The majority of resources identified are located around the communities of Delhi, Livingston, Atwater, and Chowchilla. Archaeological resources include both prehistoric and historic sites. 

Architectural resources identified were related to the railroad and residential properties dating from the 1900s. Most of the resources are within the cities of Escalon and Chowchilla. 

Architectural resources identifwere related to trailroad, commerand industry, and residential propedating from the 1900s. Most of tresources are withe cities of Modand Merced and include portions the ATSF railroad

Hydrology and Water Resources:iv

Potential impacts and associated linear ft (linear m) of floodplains and linear ft (m) of streams within potential impact study areas, ac (ha) lakes/other water bodies within study areas. 

Floodplains: 183.5 ac (74.26 ha) direct/ 669.5 ac (270.95 ha) indirect Streams: 8,291 linear ft (2,527.1 linear m) direct/ 31,632 linear ft (9,641.4 linear m) indirect Lakes/Waterbodies: 1.5 ac (0.61 ha) direct/ 6.3 ac (2.55 ha) indirect Potentially affect at least 33 unnamed and named water resources, including Stanislaus River; Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct; Tuolumne River; Merced River; Ash Slough and 

Floodplains: 191.1 ac (77.34 ha) direct/ 759.2 ac (307.25 ha) indirect Streams: 8,398 linear ft (2,559.7 linear m) direct/ 32,594 linear ft (9,934.7 linear m) indirect Lakes/Waterbodies: 1.6 ac (0.65 ha) direct/ 6.7 ac (2.71 ha) indirect Potentially affect at least 45 number of unnamed and named water resources, including Stanislaus River; Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct; Tuolumne River; Merced River; and Chowchilla River. 

Floodplains: 123.4 ac (49.94 ha) direct/ 422.7 ac (171.07 ha) indirect Streams: 7,547 linear ft (2300.3 linear m) direct 41,122 linear ft (12,534.0 linear m) indirect Lakes/Waterbodies: 0 ac (0.0 ha) direct/ 0.0 ac (0.0 ha) indirect Potentially affect at least 35 unnamed water resources, including Stanislaus River; Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct; Tuolumne River; Merced River; Chowchilla River; Ash Slough and Bypass; and Berenda 

Floodplains: 158.2 ac (64.02 ha) direct/ 628.8 ac (254.48 ha) indirect Streams: 6,965 linear ft (2,122.9 linear m) direct/ 30,37 linear ft (1 9,257.1 linear m) indirect Lakes/Waterbodies: 1.6 ac (0.65 ha) direct/ 6.7 ac (2.71 ha) indirect Potentially affect at least 43 unnamed and named water resources, including Stanislaus River; Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct; Tuolumne River; Merced River; Chowchilla River; Ash Slough and Bypass 

Floodplains: 97.7(39.54 ha) direct388 ac (157.02 hindirect Stream : 7,734 linear ft (2,357.3 linear m) direct/ 43,276 linear ft (13,190.5 linear indirect Lakes/Waterbod0.1 ac (0.04ha) direct/ 0.4 ac (0.ha) indirect Potentially affect least 34 unnameand named wateresources, includStanislaus River; Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct; TuoluRiver; Chowchilla River; Ash Sloug
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.3-11 

Central Valley Alignment Alternatives 

BNSF – UPRR BNSF N/S UPRR N/S BNSF (Castle AFB) 

UPRR- BNS(Castle AFB

Bypass; and the Berenda Slough. Where constructed either at-grade or on cut and fill, culverts would be sized appropriately to convey anticipated storm flows and to minimize ponding.

Where constructed either at-grade or on cut and fill, culverts would be sized appropriately to convey anticipated storm flows and to minimize ponding. 

Slough. Where constructed either at-grade or on cut and fill, culverts would be sized appropriately to convey anticipated storm flows and to minimize ponding. 

Berenda Slough; and Berenda Creek. Where constructed either at-grade or on cut and fill, culverts would be sized appropriately to convey anticipated storm flows and to minimize ponding. 

and Bypass; BereSlough; and BereCreek. Where constructed eithegrade or on cut afill, culverts wousized appropriateconvey anticipatestorm flows and minimize pondin

Biological Resources Including Wetlands Ac (ha) of wetland, linear ft (m) of non-wetland waters, and number of special-status species within potential impact study areas 

Wetlandsv: 3.76 ac 

(1.52 ha) direct/ 219.7 ac (88.9 ha) indirect Non-Wetland Waters: 10,137 linear ft (3,089.8 linear m) Species: 22 specialstatus plant and 22 special-status wildlife species This alignment alternative would have potential to directly impact the most wetlands. Potential species impacts include valley elderberry longhorn beetle, vernal pool fairy and tadpole shrimp, and San Joaquin kit fox. Potentially result in a barrier to wildlife 

Wetlandsv: 3.41 ac 

(1.38 ha) direct/ 261.1 ac (105.7ha) indirect Non-Wetland Waters: 10,528 linear ft (3,208.9 linear m) Species: 22 specialstatus plant and 22 special-status wildlife species This alignment alternative would have potential to indirectly impact the most wetlands and directly impact the most waters. Potential species impacts include valley elderberry longhorn beetle, vernal pool fairy and tadpole shrimp, and San Joaquin kit fox. Potentially result in a 

Wetlandsv: 3.04 ac (1.23 ha) direct/ 136.5 ac (55.2 ha) indirect Non-Wetland Waters: 7,161 linear ft (2,182.7 linear m) Species: 22 specialstatus plant and 21 special-status wildlife species This alignment alternative would have potential to directly impact the least waters. Potential species impacts include valley elderberry longhorn beetle and vernal pool fairy and tadpole shrimp. Placement along transportation corridors and the use of aerial structures 

Wetlandsv: 3.11 ac (1.26 ha) direct/ 234.8 ac (95 ha) indirect Non-Wetland Waters: 9,094 linear ft (2,771.1 linear m) Species: 19 specialstatus plant and 22 special-status wildlife species This alignment alternative would have potential to impact fewer plant species. Potential species impacts include valley elderberry longhorn beetle, vernal pool fairy and tadpole shrimp, and San Joaquin kit fox. Potentially result in a barrier to wildlife movement. Placement along transportation 

Wetlandsv: 2.39 

(0.97 ha) direct/ 172.7 ac (69.9 hindirect Non-Wetland Wa7,790 linear ft (2,374.4 linear mSpecies: 22 specstatus plant and special-status wispecies This alignment alternative would have potential to directly impact thleast wetlands. Potential species impacts include valley elderberry longhorn beetle, vernal pool fairy tadpole shrimp, San Joaquin kit fPotentially result barrier to wildlife movement. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 7.3-11 

Central Valley Alignment Alternatives 

BNSF – UPRR BNSF N/S UPRR N/S BNSF (Castle AFB) 

UPRR- BNS(Castle AFB

movement. Placement along transportation corridors and the use of aerial structures would minimize impacts. 

barrier to wildlife movement. Placement along transportation corridors and the use of aerial structures would minimize impacts. 

would minimize impacts. 

corridors and the use of aerial structures would minimize impacts. 

Placement along transportation corridors and the of aerial structurwould minimize impacts. 

Fault Crossings None 

Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources:4

Ac (ha) of parkland near HST right-ofway 

Public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges within 0–150 ft (46 m) from center of the alignment alternative include (1) County Park, (2) Tuolumne River Regional Park, (3) Stanislaus County Fairgrounds, (4) Broadway Park, and (5) Central Park. Few potential direct impacts are anticipated given that much of the alignment alternative is within or directly adjacent to existing transportation rights-of-way. 

Public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges within 0–150 ft (46 m) from center of the alignment alternative include (1) Main Street Park, (2) Jacob Meyer Regional Park, and (3) Zerillo Park. Few potential direct impacts are anticipated given that much of the alignment alternative is within or directly adjacent to existing transportation rightsof-way. 

Public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges within 0–150 ft (46 m) from center of the alignment alternative include (1) County Park, (2) Tuolumne River Regional Park, (3) Stanislaus County Fairgrounds, (4) Broadway Park, and (5) Central Park. Few potential direct impacts are anticipated given that much of the alignment alternative is within or directly adjacent to existing transportation rightsof-way. 

Public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges within 0–150 ft (46 m) from center of the alignment alternative include (1) Main Street Park, (2) Jacob Meyer Regional Park, and (3) Zerillo Park. Few potential direct impacts are anticipated given that much of the alignment alternative is within or directly adjacent to existing transportation rights-of-way. 

Public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refugewithin 0–150 ft (m) from center oalignment alterninclude (1) CounPark, (2) TuolumRiver Regional Pa(3) Stanislaus CoFairgrounds, (4) Broadway Paand (5) Central PFew potential dirimpacts are anticipated given much of the alignment alternis within or direcadjacent to existtransportation rigof-way. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

7.3.1 Bay Area to Central Valley Station Options 

Station Name (Alignment) Discussion 

Downtown San Francisco Transbay Transit Center – Caltrain Alignment 

The Transbay Transit Center would offer greater connectivity to San Francisco and the greateexisting 4th and King site because of its location in the heart of the downtown San Francisco fimany potential HST passengers could walk to the station. In addition, the Transbay Transit Cthe transit hub for all major services to downtown San Francisco, with the advantage of direct Muni (the terminal is one block from BART/Muni), and regional bus transit (Muni, Samtrans, AGate Bridge District). Since the Transbay Transit Center would offer greater connectivity to Sagreater Bay Area than the existing 4th and King site, total travel times to the Transbay Transit 

be superior. The Transbay Transit Center is very compatible with existing and planned developoint of the Transbay Redevelopment Plan that includes extensive high density residential, offcommercial/retail development. The Transbay Transit Center would have high ridership potential. Intercity ridership forecasts and 12.7 million total boardings and alightings annually by 2030 for the Pacheco “Base” netwo9.4 million for the Altamont “Base” network alternative. However, the rail portion of the conn

King and the Transbay Transit Center (that would be used by Caltrain and HST) requires difficthe alignment and is estimated to cost nearly $786 million for the 1.3-mi (2.1-km) extension (

HST/Caltrain station, tail tracks, and reconfiguring of the 4th and King yard). Both station opti

potential environmental impacts. Assuming dedicated use of four tracks and two island platforms by HST, the planned configuraTransit Center could serve all of the trains proposed in the operational plan, the Transbay Tracurrently exploring a “loop” concept which could significantly increase capacity at this potentiaHowever, given the rail facilities planned for the Transbay Transit Center (6 tracks and 3 platfcapacity available to accommodate HST and Caltrain commuter service would need subsequenplanning analysis to determine the most efficient mix and scheduling of services to be accommservices that are determined not to be accommodated at the Transbay Transit Center facility cstations along the peninsula or East Bay. Environmental Issues Traffic: 2030 No HST: V/C =0.90; LOS =D  2030 HST (Pacheco): V/C =1.08; LOS =F 

2030 HST (Altamont): V/C =1.03; LOS =F 

Parking Space Demand: (Pacheco): 2,000 - 3,000; (Altamont): 1,500 - 2,100 

Land Use/Environmental Justice: Highly compatible with existing transportation and high

Potential for impacts is low as percentages of environmental justice populations are lower tha

Farmlands: No farmland resources were identified at this station location. 

Cultural Resources and Paleontological Resources: The Transbay Terminal and Transbwere identified within the area of potential effects for this station site, and this location is in a
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Station Name (Alignment) Discussion 

for historic resources. The Transbay Terminal was built in 1939 and will be replaced with a nethe new Transbay Transit Center sometime between 2008 and 2014. Hydrology and Water Resources: This station site has the potential to impact 9.1 ac (3.6

Biological Resources Including Wetlands: One special-status plant species, the beach la

this site. Faults: None Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources: No 4(f) or 6(f) resources within 900 ft (274 m) of the st

4th and King (Caltrain) – Caltrain 

Alignment 

The 4th and King station is the existing terminus for the Caltrain commuter rail service. This sSBC Park) is well connected to the San Francisco Muni system, but stops more than 1 mi (1.6 district and does not connect to BART or regional bus transit. The station would have about a 

travel time to San Francisco than the Transbay Transit Center. The 4th and King station would also have high ridership potential. Sensitivity analysis on the P

forecasts (low-end forecasts) concluded that the 4th and King terminal station would attract ab

annual passengers (about 3.0%) than the Transbay Transit Center (including long-distance cowould have $19 million less revenue (0.6% less). The underground 4th and King terminal stat

$792 million. Environmental Issues Traffic: 2030 No HST: V/C =0.40; LOS =A 

 2030 HST (Pacheco): V/C =0.69; LOS =B 

2030 HST (Altamont): V/C =0.61; LOS =B 

Parking Space Demand: (Pacheco): 2,000 - 3,000; (Altamont): 1,500 - 2,100 

Land Use/Environmental Justice: Highly compatible with existing Caltrain station and surr

for impacts is low as percentages of environmental justice populations are lower than the thre

Farmlands: No farmland resources were identified at this station location. 

Cultural Resources and Paleontological Resources: No known cultural resources were of potential effects for this station site; however, this location is in an area of high sensitivity fHydrology and Water Resources: This station site has the potential to impact 40.6 ac (16

Biological Resources Including Wetlands: One special-status plant species, the beach la

this site. Faults: None Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources: No 4(f) or 6(f) resources within 900 ft (274 m) of the st
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Station Name (Alignment) Discussion 

Mid-Peninsula Redwood City (Caltrain) – Caltrain Alignment 

This station would be multi-modal station at the existing Caltrain Redwood City station locatio

estimate 1.7 – 2.4 million total boardings and alightings annually by 2030 for the Pacheco Pasalternative and 1.15 million for the Altamont Pass “Base” network alternative. 

The Redwood City station option would have moderate construction and right-of-way issues aenvironmental impacts, and is expected to cost about $67.5 million31. 

Environmental Issues Traffic: 2030 No HST: V/C =0.68; LOS =B  2030 HST (Pacheco): V/C =0.72; LOS =C 

2030 HST (Altamont): V/C =0.71; LOS =C 

Parking Space Demand: (Pacheco): 3,000 - 3,900; (Altamont): 2,300 - 3,000

Land Use/Environmental Justice: Compatible with existing Caltrain station and adjacent d

commercial/service oriented uses. Consistent with plans that promote transit alternatives to tfor impacts is low as percentages of environmental justice populations are lower than the threFarmlands: No farmland resources were identified at this station location. 

Cultural Resources and Paleontological Resources: No known cultural resources were of potential effects for this station site. This station site was identified as having a low sensitivresources. Hydrology and Water Resources: This station site has the potential to impact 6.2 ac (2.5

Biological Resources Including Wetlands: No special-status plant or wildlife species werFaults: None Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources: No 4(f) or 6(f) resources within 900 ft (274 m) of the st

Palo Alto (Caltrain) – Caltrain 

Alignment 

This station would be a multi-modal station at the existing Caltrain Palo Alto station location. 

would be a stop for the Caltrain express services, and therefore would have better connectivitcommuter service and to the Peninsula. The Palo Alto station would be expected to have similar costs ($67.5 million32), construction is

issues, and forecast to have about 8% higher ridership potential (1.8 – 2.6 million boardings a

the Pacheco Pass “Base” network alternative) than the Redwood City station. 

31 Shared-use station includes modification to existing platforms and passenger facilities only within existing right-of-way. Does not include full express a

configuration assumed for HST stations on dedicated high-speed lines. 

32 Shared-use station includes modification to existing platforms and passenger facilities only within existing right-of-way. Does not include full express a

configuration assumed for HST stations on dedicated high-speed lines. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Station Name (Alignment) Discussion 

Environmental Issues Traffic: 2030 No HST: V/C =0.47; LOS =A  2030 HST (Pacheco): V/C =0.50; LOS =A 

2030 HST (Altamont): V/C =0.49; LOS =A 

Parking Space Demand: (Pacheco): 3,000 - 3,900; (Altamont): 2,300 - 3,000 

Land Use/Environmental Justice: Compatible with Caltrain station, multi-family housing, a

with Stanford University. Consistent with multi-modal transit center. Potential for impacts is loenvironmental justice populations are lower than the thresholds.

Farmlands: No farmland resources were identified at this station location. 

Cultural Resources and Paleontological Resources: The existing station was built in 19National Register of Historic Places in 1996. This station site was identified as having a mode

cultural resources. Hydrology and Water Resources: This station site has the potential to impact 20.7 ac (8.Biological Resources Including Wetlands: One special-status wildlife species, California identified for this site. Faults: None Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources: No 4(f) or 6(f) resources within 900 ft (274 m) of the st

San Jose San Jose (Diridon) - Caltrain and Niles/I-880 Alignment Alternatives 

Diridon station would be a multi-modal hub maximizing connectivity to downtown San Jose anDiridon station would have high connectivity and accessibility and would serve Caltrain, ACE C

Corridor, Amtrak, VTA buses, and light rail, with a possible link to BART. This station would a

potential. Ridership forecasts project between 4.0 – 5.8 million total boardings and alightings 

Pacheco Pass “Base” network alternative, and 2.65 million for the Altamont Pass “Base” netwoThe HST platforms and tracks would be on an aerial structure constructed over the existing D

As a result, there would be high construction issues but low potential environmental impacts, 

compatibility with existing land uses. This station is estimated to cost $185 million. Environmental Issues Traffic: 2030 No HST: V/C =0.48; LOS =A 

 2030 HST (Pacheco): V/C =0.59; LOS =A 

2030 HST (Altamont): V/C =0.58; LOS =A 

Parking Space Demand: (Pacheco): 7,200 – 9,800; (Altamont): 6,500 - 8,800 

Land Use/Environmental Justice: Compatible with San Jose Diridon Caltrain station and in

with plans for downtown redevelopment. Potential for impacts is low as percentages of enviro

populations are lower than the thresholds. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Station Name (Alignment) Discussion 

Farmlands: No farmland resources were identified at this station location. 

Cultural Resources and Paleontological Resources: Cultural resources, including the Disurrounding area, were identified within the area of potential effects. This station site was idemoderate sensitivity for cultural resources. Hydrology and Water Resources: This station site has the potential to impact 18.8 ac (7.

Biological Resources Including Wetlands: One special-status plant species, the robust sspecial-status wildlife species, the California tiger salamander, were identified for this site. Faults: None Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources: No 4(f) or 6(f) resources within 900 ft (274 m) of the st

Airports Millbrae/SFO – Caltrain Alignment Alternative Coliseum/Airport - Niles/I-880 Alignment Alternative 

Both potential airport stations would have direct connections to local and regional commuter rreduce potential travel times and costs for HST passengers who would use the trains for accesof the two airport stations would be in the airport terminals, but each would permit easy acce

movers or shuttles (at SFO, BART currently provides a direct connection from the Millbrae Caltinternational terminal). Both potential airport stations would be on the alignments being invesSan Francisco and Oakland. The shared-use station at SFO is estimated to cost $29.1 million.

station is estimated to cost $61.7 million. SFO is the northern California hub airport for national and international flights. For the Millbraproject between 1.176 million total boardings and alightings annually by 2030 for the Pacheco 

alternative and 0.93 million for the Altamont Pass “Base” network alternative. This station woconnectivity linking the HST service to BART, Caltrain, and bus services as well as to SFO. The Coliseum/Airport station would have high connectivity, linking to BART, Capitol Corridor, awell as Oakland International Airport (OAK). Environmental Issues (Millbrae/SFO) Traffic: 2030 No HST: V/C =0.91; LOS =E  2030 HST (Pacheco): V/C =0.96; LOS =E 

2030 HST (Altamont): V/C =0.96; LOS =E 

Parking Space Demand: (Pacheco): 2,400 - 2,500; (Altamont): 2,100 - 2,500 

Land Use/Environmental Justice: Compatible with existing transportation uses at the Millb

Station area. Station constructed at existing Millbrae BART/Caltrain Station. Potential for imp

percentages of environmental justice populations are lower than the thresholds. 

33 Shared-use station includes modification to existing platforms and passenger facilities only within existing right-of-way. Does not include full express a

configuration assumed for HST stations on dedicated HST lines. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Station Name (Alignment) Discussion 

Farmlands: No farmland resources were identified at this station location. 

Cultural Resources and Paleontological Resources: Original station located nearby in Mand is now a museum. This station site was identified as having a high sensitivity for cultural Hydrology and Water Resources: This station site has the potential to impact 11 ac (4.45 Biological Resources Including Wetlands: No special-status plant or wildlife species werSection 4(f) and 6(f) Resources: No 4(f) or 6(f) resources within 900 ft (274 m) of the stEnvironmental Issues (Coliseum/Airport) Traffic: 2030 No HST: V/C =0.45; LOS =A  2030 HST (Pacheco): V/C =0.52; LOS =A 

2030 HST (Altamont): V/C =0.52; LOS =A 

Parking Space Demand: (Pacheco): N/A; (Altamont): N/A Land Use/Environmental Justice: Compatible with industrial uses and commercial uses asColiseum and ORACLE Arena. Consistent with plans for transit oriented district. Station constr

Coliseum/Oakland BART Station. Potential for impacts is medium as percentages of environmwithin station area exceed threshold. Farmlands: No farmland resources were identified at this station location. 

Cultural Resources and Paleontological Resources: No known cultural resources were of potential effects for this station site. This station site was identified as having a low sensitivresources. Hydrology and Water Resources: This station site has the potential to impact 1.6 ac (0.6

linear ft (513 linear m) of streams, and 15.1 ac (6.11 ha) of groundwater. Biological Resources Including Wetlands: No special-status plant or wildlife species werThis station site has the potential to impact 0.64 ac (0.26 ha) of wetlands. Faults: None Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources: One resource, Coliseum Gardens Park, within 450 ft (137 

Oakland West Oakland/7th Street - Niles/I880 Alignment Alternative This station would directly connect with BART and would have good freeway access. Both the West Oakland and 12th Street station options would be underground and require alig

tunneling, with associated high construction issues and costs. The West Oakland station is esmillion. The 4.18-mi (6.72-km) alignment between a common point at 29th Street north of the 

West Oakland is estimated to cost $518 million (not including station, parking, or any associatWest Oakland station site would be adjacent to BART in a mixed-use area. Like the Transbay Francisco), this site is forecast to have high ridership potential. It has a medium ranking for pcompatibility conflicts and presence of minority populations in the vicinity of the station area. Environmental Issues 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Station Name (Alignment) Discussion 

Traffic: 2030 No HST: V/C =0.16; LOS =A  2030 HST (Pacheco): V/C =0.32; LOS =A 

2030 HST (Altamont): V/C =0.32; LOS =A 

Parking Space Demand: (Pacheco): N/A; (Altamont): N/A Land Use/Environmental Justice: Compatible with existing West Oakland BART Station andistrict. Consistent with plans for transit oriented district. Station constructed below grade. Pmedium as percentages of environmental justice populations within station area exceed threshFarmlands: No farmland resources were identified at this station location. 

Cultural Resources and Paleontological Resources: No known cultural resources were of potential effects for this station site. This station site was identified as having a low sensitivresources. Hydrology and Water Resources: This station site has the potential to impact 5.1 ac (2.0

Biological Resources Including Wetlands: No special-status plant or wildlife species werFaults: None Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources: No 4(f) or 6(f) resources within 900 ft (274 m) of the st

12th Street/City Center - Niles/I880 Alignment Alternative This station would directly connect with BART and would have good freeway access. The 12th 

have high connectivity, as it is located in the heart of downtown Oakland where many potentiwalk to the station. The 12th Street City Center BART station is also a transfer station, providi

to the regional rail transit system. Sensitivity analysis on the Altamont Pass (the network alteand San Jose) resulted in a 2.7% increase in ridership (over 2.4 million passengers per year) aWest Oakland terminus and a 1.5% increase in revenue. In contrast, sensitivity analysis on th12th Street/City Center option resulted in a 0.7% decrease in ridership and 2.5% decrease in r

Street/City Center option has more constructability issues than the Oakland West site. The 12th Street station is estimated to cost $611 million. The 3.17-mi (5.10-km) (cost) alignm

north of the Oakland Coliseum and 12th Street is estimated to cost $426 million (not including 

associated right-of-way). The 12th Street site would be in a deep tunnel under the 12th Street 

have a low ranking for potential land-use compatibility conflicts and presence of minority popu

the station area. Environmental Issues Traffic: 2030 No HST: V/C =0.45; LOS =A  2030 HST (Pacheco): V/C =0.53; LOS =B 

2030 HST (Altamont): V/C =0.53; LOS =B 

Parking Space Demand: (Pacheco): N/A; (Altamont): N/A Land Use/Environmental Justice: Compatible with 12th Street/City Center BART Station, c

intensity commercial uses associated with Downtown Oakland. Consistent with plans for transStation would be constructed at grade. Potential for impacts is medium as percentages of env
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Station Name (Alignment) Discussion 

populations within station area exceed threshold. Farmlands: No farmland resources were identified at this station location. 

Cultural Resources and Paleontological Resources: No known cultural resources were of potential effects for this station site. This station site was identified as having a moderate sresources. Hydrology and Water Resources: This station site has the potential to impact 4.8 ac (1.9

Biological Resources Including Wetlands: No special-status plant or wildlife species werFaults: None Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources: No 4(f) or 6(f) resources within 900 ft (274 m) of the st

Southern Alameda County Union City (BART) - Niles/I-880 Alignment Alternative 

This station location would offer the highest level of connectivity for south Alameda County. Twould connect to BART, Capitol Corridor, and AC Transit and is expected to have similar ridersFremont Warm Springs option. It would have low construction issues and low potential minor

and is estimated to cost $69.9 million. Environmental Issues Traffic: 2030 No HST: V/C =0.55; LOS =A  2030 HST (Pacheco): V/C =0.67; LOS =B 

2030 HST (Altamont): V/C =0.67; LOS =B 

Parking Space Demand: (Pacheco): 3,000 - 3,900; (Altamont): 1,300 – 1,800 

Land Use/Environmental Justice: Compatible with Union City BART Station and industrial 

Consistent with plans for development of a regional intermodal facility and research and deveconstructed near Union City BART Station. Potential for impacts is medium as percentages of 

populations within station area exceed threshold.

Farmlands: No farmland resources were identified at this station location. 

Cultural Resources and Paleontological Resources: No known cultural resources were of potential effects for this station site. This station site was identified as having a low sensitiv

but a high sensitivity for paleontological resources. Hydrology and Water Resources: This station site has the potential to impact 1.1 ac (0.4

linear ft (83.2 linear m) of streams, and 56 ac (22.6 ha) of groundwater. Biological Resources Including Wetlands: No special-status plant or wildlife species wer

Faults: None Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources: One resource, Charles F. Kennedy Park, within 900 ft (2
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Station Name (Alignment) Discussion 

Union City (Shinn) – Trans Bay Crossing – Dumbarton Alignment Alternatives 

There are no current plans for this site to be a multi-modal hub station. This station location 

and accessibility than either the Union City or Fremont Warm Springs station options – and is 

have somewhat less ridership potential. There are considerable constructability issues at this $310 million. Environmental Issues Traffic: 2030 No HST: V/C =0.46; LOS =A 

 2030 HST (Pacheco): N/A 

2030 HST (Altamont): V/C =0.49; LOS =A 

Parking Space Demand: (Pacheco): N/A; (Altamont): 1,300 – 1,800 

Land Use/Environmental Justice: Highly compatible with industrial uses. Low compatibil

residential uses. New station constructed outside existing transportation right-of-way. Potentpercentages of environmental justice populations within station area exceed threshold. Farmlands: No farmland resources were identified at this station location. 

Cultural Resources and Paleontological Resources: No known cultural resources were of potential effects for this station site. This station site was identified as having a low sensitiv

resources. Hydrology and Water Resources: This station site is not anticipated to result in impacts o

resources. Biological Resources Including Wetlands: No special-status plant or wildlife species wer

Faults: None Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources: One resource, Shinn Memorial Park, within 450 ft (137 m

Fremont (Warm Springs) – Niles/I880 Alignment Alternative The Warm Springs station would have good access to the I-880 freeway, a potential direct con

BART station and AC Transit. Ridership forecasts estimate 377 thousand total boardings and 

2030 for the Altamont Pass “Base” network alternative The Warm Springs station is estimated 

Environmental Issues Traffic: 2030 No HST: V/C =0.46; LOS =A  2030 HST (Pacheco): N/A 

2030 HST (Altamont): V/C =0.47; LOS =A 

Parking Space Demand: (Pacheco): N/A; (Altamont): 1,300 – 1,800 

Land Use/Environmental Justice: Compatible with existing industrial and transportation u

plans for future BART station. New station constructed outside of existing transportation rightimpacts is medium as percentages of environmental justice populations within station area ex

Farmlands: No farmland resources were identified at this station location. 

Cultural Resources and Paleontological Resources: No known cultural resources were 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Station Name (Alignment) Discussion 

of potential effects for this station site. This station site was identified as having a low sensitiv

but a high sensitivity for paleontological resources. Hydrology and Water Resources: This station site has the potential to impact 81.3 ac (32

Biological Resources Including Wetlands: No special-status plant or wildlife species werFaults: None Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources: No 4(f) or 6(f) resources within 900 ft (274 m) of the st

Southern Santa Clara County Gilroy (Caltrain) - Pacheco Pass Alignment Alternative 

Southern Santa Clara County would be served by a station at either Gilroy or Morgan Hill. Botstations would be at Caltrain commuter rail station locations. The Gilroy station is about 10 m

Morgan Hill and therefore provides better connectivity and travel times and less access costs tMonterey/Carmel, and Salinas markets. Ridership forecasts estimate 1.7 – 2.3 million total boannually by 2030 for the Pacheco Pass “Base” network alternative The Gilroy and Morgan Hill station options would have similar costs, construction issues, and o

which were ranked as medium potential impacts. Both station options would be expected to h

environmental impacts; however, the Gilroy station site is located in a 100-yr floodplain and w

floodplain impacts. The Gilroy aerial station option is estimated to cost $148 million34. 

Environmental Issues Traffic: 2030 No HST: V/C =0.67; LOS =B  2030 HST (Pacheco): V/C =0.74; LOS =C 

2030 HST (Altamont): N/A 

Parking Space Demand: (Pacheco): 2,800 – 3,800; (Altamont): N/A Land Use/Environmental Justice: Highly compatible with existing Gilroy Caltrain station aLow compatibility with single-family residential use. Consistent with policies for development center. Station constructed at the Gilroy Caltrain station. Potential for impacts is medium as environmental justice populations exceed thresholds. Farmlands: No farmland resources were identified at this station location. 

Cultural Resources and Paleontological Resources: No known cultural resources were of potential effects for this station site. This station site was identified as having a low sensitivresources. Hydrology and Water Resources: This station site has the potential to impact 40.1 ac (16Biological Resources Including Wetlands: One special-status plant species, showy India

for this site. 

34 Costs are reduced because of lower proposed speed for station stopping tracks, which would require less infrastructure and right-of-way. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Station Name (Alignment) Discussion 

Faults: None Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources: No 4(f) or 6(f) resources within 900 ft (274 m) of the st

Morgan Hill (Caltrain) - Pacheco Pass Alignment Alternative 

Southern Santa Clara County would be potentially served by a station at Morgan Hill. This sta

Caltrain commuter rail station location. This site is expected to have considerably less ridershGilroy site. A sensitivity analysis on the Pacheco Pass “Base” forecast with both Morgan Hill a

resulted in over twice as many riders using the Gilroy station option. The Morgan Hill (Caltrain

estimated to cost $285 million. Environmental Issues Traffic: 2030 No HST: V/C =0.59; LOS =A 

 2030 HST (Pacheco): V/C =0.65; LOS =B 

2030 HST (Altamont): N/A 

Parking Space Demand: (Pacheco): 1,400 - 1,500; (Altamont): 1,400 – 1,500 

Land Use/Environmental Justice: Compatible with Morgan Hill Caltrain station and comm

with plans for development of multi-modal transit transfer center. Potential for impacts is low 

environmental justice populations are lower than the thresholds. 

Farmlands: No farmland resources were identified at this station location. 

Cultural Resources and Paleontological Resources: No known cultural resources were of potential effects for this station site. This station site was identified as having a low sensitiv

resources. Hydrology and Water Resources: This station site has the potential to impact 11 ac (4.45 

Biological Resources Including Wetlands: No special-status plant or wildlife species wer

Faults: None Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources: No 4(f) or 6(f) resources within 900 ft (274 m) of the st

East Bay to Central Valley: Altamont Pass (Tri-Valley) Pleasanton (I-680/Bernal Rd) – I580/UPRR, Patterson Pass/UPRR, and UPRR Alignment Alternatives

This station could provide a high level of connectivity to Regional Rail service such as the exis

location provides convenient access to I-680 and I-580. Ridership forecasts estimate 4.2 – 5.

and alightings annually by 2030 for the Pleasanton (I-680/Bernal Rd) site using the Altamont alternative. The station is estimated to cost $72.6 million. Environmental Issues Traffic: 2030 No HST: V/C =0.53; LOS =A  2030 HST (Pacheco): N/A 

2030 HST (Altamont): V/C =0.70; LOS =C 

Parking Space Demand: (Pacheco): N/A; (Altamont): 6,900 - 9,100 

Land Use/Environmental Justice: Incompatible with single-family residential use. Medium 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Station Name (Alignment) Discussion 

nearby schools and community parks. Moderately consistent with plans for adjacent parks, atutilities. Compatible with existing ACE station. Potential for impacts is low as percentages of populations are lower than the thresholds. Farmlands: No farmland resources were identified at this station location. 

Cultural Resources and Paleontological Resources: No known cultural resources were of potential effects for this station site. This station site was identified as having a low sensitivresources. Hydrology and Water Resources: This station site has the potential to impact 10.9 ac (4.

Biological Resources Including Wetlands: No special-status plant or wildlife species werFaults: None Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources: No 4(f) or 6(f) resources within 900 ft (274 m) of the st

Pleasanton (BART) – I-680/I580/UPRR Alignment Alternative This station would provide a high level of connectivity to the BART system at the existing Dub

Station. This location provides convenient access to I-680 and I-580. There would be significissues implementing this HST station over an existing BART station in the freeway median and 

times than other options serving the Tri-Valley. Sensitivity analysis forecast 1.6% less total rid

fewer annual passengers) for an Altamont Pass “Base” network alternative using the Pleasanto(and the I-680/I-580/UPRR alignment) rather than the Pleasanton Bernal/I-680 station option 

The station is estimated to cost $317 million. Environmental Issues Traffic: 2030 No HST: V/C =0.44; LOS =A  2030 HST (Pacheco): N/A 

2030 HST (Altamont): V/C =0.46; LOS =A 

Parking Space Demand: (Pacheco): N/A; (Altamont): 6,900 - 9,100

Land Use/Environmental Justice: Compatible with Dublin/Pleasanton BART station and ex

Consistent with planned mixed-use development around BART station. Potential for impacts ienvironmental justice populations are lower than the thresholds. 

Farmlands: No farmland resources were identified at this station location. 

Cultural Resources and Paleontological Resources: No known cultural resources were of potential effects for this station site. This station site was identified as having a low sensitiv

resources. Hydrology and Water Resources: This station site has the potential to impact 2.4 ac (0.9

linear ft (133.5 linear m) of streams, and 16.2 ac (6.56 ha) of groundwater. 

Biological Resources Including Wetlands: No special-status plant or wildlife species werFaults: None 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Station Name (Alignment) Discussion 

Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources: No 4(f) or 6(f) resources within 900 ft (274 m) of the st

Livermore (Downtown) – Patterson Pass/UPRR and UPRR Alignment Alternatives

This station could provide a high level of connectivity to Regional Rail service such as the exisLivermore stations locations are not as conveniently located for automobile accessibility as the 

for a majority of the potential Tri-Valley and Contra Costa HST passengers. The Bay Area Regis considering a potential BART extension to Livermore. Sensitivity analysis forecast 1.6% less 1.4 million fewer annual passengers) for an Altamont Pass “Base” network alternative using thstation option rather than the Pleasanton Bernal/I-680 station option to serve the Tri-Valley. Tto cost $73.2 million. Environmental Issues Traffic: 2030 No HST: V/C =0.82; LOS =D  2030 HST (Pacheco): N/A 

2030 HST (Altamont): V/C =1.10; LOS =F 

Parking Space Demand: (Pacheco): N/A; (Altamont): 6,900 - 9,100Land Use/Environmental Justice: Compatible with industrial and transportation uses. Con

development of mixed-use downtown development. Potential for impacts is low as percentag

justice populations are lower than the thresholds. Farmlands: No farmland resources were identified at this station location. 

Cultural Resources and Paleontological Resources: No known cultural resources were of potential effects for this station site. This station site was identified as having a low sensitiv

resources. Hydrology and Water Resources: This station site has the potential to impact 13.3 ac (5.Biological Resources Including Wetlands: No special-status plant or wildlife species wer

Faults: None 

Livermore (I-580) – I680/I580/UPRR and I-580/UPRR Alignment Alternatives

This station would provide direct access to vehicles traveling along the I-580 freeway in the T

this Livermore station location is less conveniently located for automobile accessibility for a ma

Tri-Valley and Contra Costa HST passengers than the Pleasanton station options. The Bay Areeffort is considering a potential BART extension to Livermore. Intercity ridership forecasts est

boardings and alightings as for the Livermore (Downtown) site. The station is estimated to co

Environmental Issues Traffic: 2030 No HST: V/C =1.07; LOS =F  2030 HST (Pacheco): N/A 

2030 HST (Altamont): V/C =1.38; LOS =F 

Parking Space Demand: (Pacheco): N/A; (Altamont): 6,900 - 9,100Land Use/Environmental Justice: Compatible with existing transportation uses. Consisteneighborhood commercial land uses. Potential for impacts is low as percentages of environme
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Station Name (Alignment) Discussion 

are lower than the thresholds. Farmlands: No farmland resources were identified at this station location. 

Cultural Resources and Paleontological Resources: No known cultural resources were of potential effects for this station site. This station site was identified as having a low sensitiv

but a high sensitivity for paleontological resources. Hydrology and Water Resources: This station site has the potential to impact 1.7 ac (0.6

linear ft (53 linear m) of streams, 15.9 ac (6.43 ha) of groundwater, and to encounter 8.3 ac susceptible to erosion. Biological Resources Including Wetlands: No special-status plant or wildlife species werThis station site has the potential to impact 1.02 ac (0.41 ha) of wetlands. Faults: None Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources: No 4(f) or 6(f) resources within 900 ft (274 m) of the st

Livermore (Greenville/UPRR) – Patterson Pass/UPRR and UPRR Alignment Alternatives

This station could provide a high level of connectivity to Regional Rail service such as the exisstation location is on the eastern fringe of Livermore and is not as accessible to the area’s pop

sites and is the least conveniently located for automobile accessibility for a majority of the pot

Contra Costa HST passengers. The Bay Area Regional Rail planning effort is considering a potLivermore. Intercity ridership forecasts estimated to be slightly less than the Livermore (Dowis estimated to cost $72.6 million. Environmental Issues Traffic: 2030 No HST: V/C =0.44; LOS =A  2030 HST (Pacheco): N/A 

2030 HST (Altamont): V/C =0.71; LOS =C 

Parking Space Demand: (Pacheco): N/A; (Altamont): 6,900 - 9,100Land Use/Environmental Justice: Compatible with industrial uses. Consistent with propos

Potential for impacts is low as percentages of environmental justice populations are lower tha

Farmlands: No farmland resources were identified at this station location. 

Cultural Resources and Paleontological Resources: No known cultural resources were of potential effects for this station site. This station site was identified as having a low sensitiv

resources. Hydrology and Water Resources: This station site has the potential to impact 12.9 ac (5.Biological Resources Including Wetlands: No special-status plant or wildlife species wer

Faults: None Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources: No 4(f) or 6(f) resources within 900 ft (274 m) of the st
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Station Name (Alignment) Discussion 

Livermore (Greenville/I-580) – I680/I580/UPRR and I-580/UPRR Alignment Alternatives

This station would provide direct access to vehicles traveling along the I-580 freeway in the Tstation location is on the eastern fringe of Livermore and is not as accessible to the area’s pop

sites and is the least conveniently located for automobile accessibility for a majority of the pot

Contra Costa HST passengers. The Bay Area Regional Rail planning effort is considering a potLivermore. Intercity ridership forecasts estimated to be slightly less than the Livermore (Dowis estimated to cost $160 million. Environmental Issues Traffic: 2030 No HST: V/C =0.50; LOS =A  2030 HST (Pacheco): N/A 

2030 HST (Altamont): V/C =0.80; LOS =C 

Parking Space Demand: (Pacheco): N/A; (Altamont): 6,900 - 9,100Land Use/Environmental Justice: Compatible with industrial uses. Incompatible with exi

agricultural uses. Not consistent with proposed agricultural use. Potential for impacts is low aenvironmental justice populations are lower than the thresholds. 

Farmlands: No farmland resources were identified at this station location. 

Cultural Resources and Paleontological Resources: No known cultural resources were of potential effects for this station site. This station site was identified as having a low sensitiv

but a high sensitivity for paleontological resources. Hydrology and Water Resources: This station site has the potential to impact 13.8 ac (5.and to encounter 8.2 ac (3.32 ha) of soils susceptible to erosion. Biological Resources Including Wetlands: No special-status plant or wildlife species wer

This station site has the potential to impact 1.07 ac (0.43 ha) of wetlands. 

Faults: None Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources: No 4(f) or 6(f) resources within 900 ft (274 m) of the st

East Bay to Central Valley: Altamont Pass (Tracy)Tracy (Downtown) – Tracy Downtown (BNSF Connection) and Tracy Downtown (UPRR Connection) Alignment Alternatives

This station would be consistent with City of Tracy Redevelopment Plans for Transit Oriented intermodal station in downtown Tracy. Regional Rail planning is investigating the potential to 

station for a future improved ACE service. Ridership forecasts estimate 0.8 – 1.1 million total 

annually by 2030 for the Tracy (Downtown) site using the Altamont Pass “Base” network alter

estimated to cost $310 million. Environmental Issues Traffic: 2030 No HST: V/C =0.64; LOS =B  2030 HST (Pacheco): N/A 

2030 HST (Altamont): V/C =0.74; LOS =C 

Parking Space Demand: (Pacheco): N/A; (Altamont): 1,200 - 1,700
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Station Name (Alignment) Discussion 

Land Use/Environmental Justice: Highly consistent with planned downtown mixed-use de

for impacts is low as percentages of environmental justice populations are lower than the thre

Farmlands: No farmland resources were identified at this station location. 

Cultural Resources and Paleontological Resources: No known cultural resources were of potential effects for this station site. This station site was identified as having a low sensitivresources. Hydrology and Water Resources: This station site has the potential to impact 11.8 ac (4.

Biological Resources Including Wetlands: No special-status plant or wildlife species werFaults: None Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources: No 4(f) or 6(f) resources within 900 ft (274 m) of the st

Tracy (ACE) – Tracy ACE (BNSF Connection) and Tracy ACE (UPRR Connection) Alignment Alternatives

This station could provide a high level of connectivity to Regional Rail service such as the exis

is a rural area outside the current urban area of Tracy. Sensitivity analysis forecasts about 0.2(about 190 thousand passengers annually by 2030) for the Altamont Pass “Base” network alteACE station rather than the Tracy Downtown option. The station is estimated to cost $315 mEnvironmental Issues Traffic: 2030 No HST: V/C =0.02; LOS =B 

 2030 HST (Pacheco): N/A 

2030 HST (Altamont): V/C =0.26; LOS =A 

Parking Space Demand: (Pacheco): N/A; (Altamont): 1,200 - 1,700Land Use/Environmental Justice: Compatible with industrial and agricultural uses. Consiencourage improved regional rail service. Potential for impacts is low as percentages of enviropopulations are lower than the thresholds. Farmlands: No farmland resources were identified at this station location. 

Cultural Resources and Paleontological Resources: No known cultural resources were of potential effects for this station site. This station site was identified as having a low sensitiv

resources. Hydrology and Water Resources: This station site has the potential to impact 15 ac (6.07 

Biological Resources Including Wetlands: No special-status plant or wildlife species wer

This station site has the potential to impact 0.08 ac (0.03 ha) of wetlands. 

Faults: None Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources: No 4(f) or 6(f) resources within 900 ft (274 m) of the st
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Station Name (Alignment) Discussion 

Central Valley (Modesto) Modesto (Downtown) – BNSFUPRR, UPRR, and UPRR-BNSF Alignment Alternatives

The downtown Modesto station maximizes connectivity to downtown Modesto, and provides c99 and good bus transit access. This option through downtown Modesto would have consideras compared with the Amtrak Briggsmore site. Ridership forecasts estimate 1.589 million totaalightings annually by 2030 for the Modesto HST station (slightly higher than the Amtrak BriggAltamont Pass “Base” network alternative. Sensitivity analysis forecast a 0.3% increase in tot

thousand passengers annually by 2030) for the Pacheco Pass “Base” network alternative using rather than Briggsmore (Amtrak). The station is estimated to cost $71.4 million. Environmental Issues Traffic: 2030 No HST: V/C =0.90; LOS =D  2030 HST (Pacheco): V/C =0.92; LOS =E 

2030 HST (Altamont): V/C =0.92; LOS =E 

Parking Space Demand: (Pacheco): 2,700 - 4,000; (Altamont): 2,800 - 4,100

Land Use/Environmental Justice: Compatible with industrial and commercial uses. Potenpercentages of environmental justice populations are lower than the thresholds. Farmlands: No farmland resources were identified at this station location. 

Cultural Resources and Paleontological Resources: No known cultural resources were of potential effects for this station site. This station site was identified as having a low to med

for cultural resources. Hydrology and Water Resources: This station site has the potential to impact 8.5 ac (3.4

Biological Resources Including Wetlands: One special-status wildlife species, the valley 

beetle, was identified for this site. Faults: None Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources: No 4(f) or 6(f) resources within 900 ft (274 m) of the st

Briggsmore (Amtrak) – BNSF, BNSF Castle, BNSF-UPRR Alignment Alternatives

The Amtrak Briggsmore station is about 5 mi (8 km) east of downtown Modesto. This is the sstation with direct connection to Amtrak services and bus services. Ridership forecasts estimaboardings and alightings annually by 2030 for the Amtrak Briggsmore site using the Pacheco P

alternative. Sensitivity analysis forecast about 0.4% total ridership less (about 300 thousand 2030) than the Altamont Pass “Base” network alternative using Briggsmore (Amtrak) rather th

(Downtown). The station is estimated to cost $71.4 million. Environmental Issues Traffic: 2030 No HST: V/C =0.88; LOS =D 

 2030 HST (Pacheco): V/C =0.91; LOS =E 

2030 HST (Altamont): V/C =0.91; LOS =E 

Parking Space Demand: (Pacheco): 2,700 - 4,000; (Altamont): 2,800 - 4,100
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Station Name (Alignment) Discussion 

Land Use/Environmental Justice: Incompatible with single-family residential and agricultimpacts is low as percentages of environmental justice populations are lower than the threshoFarmlands: No farmland resources were identified at this station location. 

Cultural Resources and Paleontological Resources: No known cultural resources were of potential effects for this station site. This station site was identified as having a low sensitivresources. Hydrology and Water Resources: This station site has the potential to impact 14.2 ac (5.

Biological Resources Including Wetlands: No special-status plant or wildlife species werFaults: None Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources: No 4(f) or 6(f) resources within 900 ft (274 m) of the st

Central Valley (Merced) Merced (Downtown) – BNSF-UPRR, UPRR, and BNSF-UPRR Alignment Alternatives

The downtown Merced station is located near the city center and transit hub of Merced, has gthe bus transit hub for Merced, and would have a higher level of connectivity than the Castle A

forecasts estimate 627 – 872 thousand total boardings and alightings annually by 2030 for the station option using the Pacheco Pass “Base” network alternative, and 671 thousand for the A

network alternative. The downtown Merced option would have higher construction issues tha

and four tracks would be needed through downtown Merced to accommodate express service

estimated to cost $71.4 million. Environmental Issues Traffic: 2030 No HST: V/C =1.15; LOS =F 

 2030 HST (Pacheco): V/C =1.16; LOS =F 

2030 HST (Altamont): V/C =1.16; LOS =F 

Parking Space Demand: (Pacheco): 1,000 - 1,300; (Altamont): 1,200 - 1,600

Land Use/Environmental Justice: Compatible with commercial use. Incompatible with si

use. Potential for impacts is low as percentages of environmental justice populations are lowe

Farmlands: No farmland resources were identified at this station location. 

Cultural Resources and Paleontological Resources: No known cultural resources were of potential effects for this station site. This station site was identified as having a low to med

cultural resources. Hydrology and Water Resources: This station site has the potential to impact 11.7 ac (4.

Biological Resources Including Wetlands: One special-status wildlife species, the giant g

identified for this site. Noise: Although express trains would run through Merced at speeds up to 220 mph (354 kph

through Merced are expected to be moderate because of mostly commercial and industrial lan
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Station Name (Alignment) Discussion 

freight railroad. Many of the potential noise impacts could be offset by grade separating the aand eliminating horn noise from warning gates. Faults: None Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources: No 4(f) or 6(f) resources within 900 ft (274 m) of the st

Castle AFB – BNSF Castle, and UPRRBNSF Castle Alignment Alternatives This station would be consistent with City of Merced’s Redevelopment Plans for Transit Orient

intermodal station in the Castle AFB. This site is about 7 mi (11 km) from downtown Merced access to the developing UC Merced campus via a new highway alignment along Bellevue Avehave less connectivity and accessibility than the downtown Merced station option but is estima

ridership and revenue. The station is estimated to cost $71.4 million. Environmental Issues Traffic: 2030 No HST: V/C =0.63; LOS =B  2030 HST (Pacheco): V/C =0.65; LOS =B 

2030 HST (Altamont): V/C =0.65; LOS =B 

Parking Space Demand: (Pacheco): 1,000 - 1,300; (Altamont): 1,200 - 1,600

Land Use/Environmental Justice: Compatible with industrial use and inactive Castle AFB. residential use. Potential for impacts is low as percentages of environmental justice populatio

thresholds. Farmlands: This station site would have the potential to impact up to 12 ac (4.86 ha) of prim

this station would have the greatest potential impact on farmland of all the stations. 

Cultural Resources and Paleontological Resources: No known cultural resources were 

of potential effects for this station site. This station site was identified as having a low sensitiv

resources. Hydrology and Water Resources: This station site has the potential to impact 416 linear fstreams and canals including the Casad Lateral. Biological Resources Including Wetlands: No special-status plant or wildlife species wer

The Casad Lateral extends through a portion of the site. Noise: Would be about the same as the Merced (Downtown) option. Faults: None Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources: No 4(f) or 6(f) resources within 900 ft (274 m) of the st
U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 8-1

8 PREFERRED HST ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES AND STATION 

LOCATION OPTIONS 

8.1 Introduction 

This chapter describes the Authority and FRA’s preferred HST Network and Alignment Alternatives and 

station location options and evaluates Network Alternatives that supported the identification of the 

preferred alternative. The draft Program EIR/EIS did not identify a preference among the HST Network 

and Alignment Alternatives or station location options presented. 

To facilitate the selection of preferred HST alignment alternatives and station location options in the Final 

Program EIR/EIS, the Authority staff presented recommendations to the Authority at the November 14, 

2007, board meeting as an informational item (Appendix 8-A). The Authority provided direction to staff 

to prepare the Final Program EIR/EIS based upon these recommendations at its meeting on December 

19, 2007. At the conclusion of this environmental review process, the Authority expects to certify the 

Final Program EIR, adopt necessary findings, and take action to approve and select preferred alignment 

alternative and station location options for this portion of the HST system, and it is anticipated that the 

FRA would issue a Record of Decision (ROD) on the Final Program EIS. 

HST Network Alternatives represent different ways to combine HST Alignment Alternatives and station 

location options to implement the HST system in the study region. The Draft Program EIR/EIS focused 

on analysis of HST Alignment Alternatives. Because there are many possible combinations of alignments 

and stations, 21 representative HST network alternatives were considered and described to better 

understand the implications of selection of certain alignment alternatives and station location options. 

The network alternatives were developed to enable an evaluation and comparison of how various 

combinations of alignment alternatives would meet the project’s purpose and need, how each would 

perform as a HST network (e.g., travel times between various station locations, anticipated ridership, 

operating and maintenance costs, energy consumption, and auto trip diversions), and how each would 

impact the environment. 

The Draft Program EIR/EIS did not attempt to screen or evaluate the representative network alternatives 

to identify those that are likely to be reasonable and practicable and that meet the project’s purpose and 

need. The evaluation of Network Alternatives presented in Section 8.3 below in this Final Program 

EIR/EIS is supported and informed by agency and public review and comment on the Network 

Alternatives described in the Draft Program EIR/EIS. 

Chapter 7 summarizes and compares the relative differences among physical and operational 

characteristics and potential environmental consequences associated with the HST alignment alternatives 

and station location options, including: 

• Physical/operational characteristics 

− Alignment 

− Length 

− Capital Cost 

− Travel Time 

− Ridership 

− Constructability 

− Operational Issues 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 8 Preferred HST Alignments

and Station Location Options 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 8-2

• Potential environmental impacts 

− Transportation related topics (air quality, noise and vibration, and energy) 

− Human environment (land use and community impacts, farmlands and agriculture, aesthetics and 

visual resources, socioeconomics, utilities and public services, hazardous materials and wastes) 

− Cultural resources (archaeological resources, historical properties) and paleontological resources 

− Natural environment (geology and seismic hazards, hydrology and water resources, and 

biological resources and wetlands). 

− Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources (certain types of publicly owned parklands, recreation areas, 

wildlife/waterfowl refuges, and historical sites). 

In identifying a preferred alignment alternative, the Authority was guided by adopted objectives and 

criteria for selecting preferred alignment alternatives and station location options that were also applied 

in the alignment screening evaluation as documented in Section 2.5.1 (Table 8.1-1 below). 

Table 8.1-1 

High-Speed Rail Alignment and Station Evaluation Objectives and Criteria 

Objective Criteria 

Maximize ridership/revenue potential Travel time 

Length 

Population/employment catchment area 

Ridership and revenue forecasts 

Maximize connectivity and accessibility Intermodal connections 

Minimize operating and capital costs Length 

Operational issues 

Construction issues 

Capital cost 

Right-of-way issues/cost 

Maximize compatibility with existing and planned 

development 

Land use compatibility and conflicts 

Visual quality impacts 

Minimize impacts on natural resources Water resources impacts 

Floodplain impacts 

Wetland impacts 

Threatened and endangered species impacts 

Minimize impacts on social and economic resources Environmental justice impacts (demographics) 

Farmland impacts 

Minimize impacts on cultural and parks/wildlife refuge 

resources 

Cultural resources impacts 

Parks and recreation impacts 

Wildlife refuge impacts 

Maximize avoidance of areas with geologic and soils 

constraints 

Soils/slope constraints 

Seismic constraints 

Maximize avoidance of areas with potential hazardous 

materials 

Hazardous materials/waste constraints 

The FRA has concurred with the Authority’s identification of preferred alignment alternatives and station 

location options and has consulted with USEPA and USACE regarding their concurrence for compliance 

with the requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Although no permit is being requested at 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 8 Preferred HST Alignments

and Station Location Options 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 8-3

this time under the Clean Water Act, USEPA and USACE have concurred that the identified preferred 

alignment alternative is most likely to yield the “least environmentally damaging practicable alternative” 

(LEDPA) consistent with the USACE’s permit program (33 CFR Part 320–331) and USEPA’s Section 

404(b)(1) Guidelines (40 CFR 230–233) (Appendix 8-B). In addition, the HST Alternative represents the 

proposed action and the Authority and FRA have identified the preferred HST Alternative as 

environmentally preferable under NEPA and environmentally superior under CEQA. 

After the conclusion of this environmental process, the Authority and FRA would focus future project 

analysis in the study region on alignment alternatives and station location options selected through this 

program environmental process. Site-specific location and design alternatives for the preferred 

alternative and station location options, including avoidance and minimization alternatives, will be fully 

investigated and considered during next tier project-level environmental review. 

8.2 Summary of Comments on the Identification of the Preferred 

Alternative 

The identification of a preferred HST alignment between the Bay Area and Central Valley is controversial, 

and this program EIR/EIS process has received a considerable amount of comment from agencies 

(federal, state, regional, and local), organizations, and the general public (for more details, see 

Chapter 10, “Public and Agency Involvement”). There is a wide divergence of opinion with many favoring 

the Pacheco Pass, many favoring the Altamont Pass, and many favoring a combination of both passes 

(with the Pacheco serving as the north/south HST connection and Altamont primarily serving interregional 

commuter service between Sacramento/Northern San Joaquin Valley and the Bay Area). 

8.2.1 Pacheco 

The Pacheco Pass supporters include the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the cities of 

San Francisco, San Jose, Redwood City, Fremont, Morgan Hill, Cupertino, Sunnyvale, Gilroy, and Salinas; 

the counties of San Francisco, Santa Clara, San Mateo, and Monterey; Congress members Lofgren, 

Honda, Eshoo, and Lantos; Assembly member Beale; State Senators Alquist and Maldanado; the San 

Francisco County Transportation Agency; the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA); 

Peninsula Corridor (Caltrain) Joint Powers Board (JPB); San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans); 

San Mateo County Transportation Authority (TA); Monterey County Transportation Agency; Alameda 

County Congestion Management Agency; Alameda County Supervisor Scott Haggerty; the San Jose, the 

San Francisco, Redwood City, and the San Mateo County Chamber of Commerce; the Silicon Valley 

Leadership Group; and a number of members of the public representing themselves. 

There are a number of reasons supporters give for preferring the Pacheco Pass, including: 1) quicker 

travel times between San Jose/Silicon Valley and Southern California; 2) more frequent/better service 

between Bay Area and southern California; 3) higher ridership potential; 4) less potential environmental 

impacts; 5) avoiding impacts on wildlife and sensitive habitat through Don Edwards San Francisco Bay 

National Wildlife Refuge; 6) best serves the Caltrain Corridor (San Francisco to Gilroy); 7) provides good 

HST access for the three county Monterey Bay area with a south Santa Clara HST station; 8) can serve 

San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose without a new crossing of the Bay; 9) all service through San 

Jose/best serves south Bay; and 10) less cost for first phase of system between the Bay Area and 

Anaheim. 

There are a considerable number of organizations, agencies, and individuals who have expressed concern 

regarding potential impacts on the GEA and/or the uninhabited portions of the Pacheco Pass by HST 

alternatives via the Pacheco Pass. These include the USFWS, CDFG, California Department of Parks and 

Recreation, Grassland Water District, Grassland Resources Conservation District, Grassland Conservation, 

Education & Legal Defense Fund, Ducks Unlimited, California Outdoor Heritage Alliance, California 

Waterfowl Association, Sacramento Area Council of Governments, Citizens’ Committee to Complete the 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 8 Preferred HST Alignments

and Station Location Options 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 8-4

Refuge, Bay Rail Alliance, California Rail Foundation (CRF), California State Parks Foundation (CSPF), 

Defenders of Wildlife, Planning and Conservation League (PCL), Regional Alliance for Transit (RAFT), 

Sierra Club, Train Riders Association of California (TRAC), and Transportation Solutions Defense and 

Education Fund (TRANSDEF). California Department of Parks and Recreation raised concerns regarding 

potential impacts on State Parks and reserve resources through the Pacheco Pass. In addition, the town 

of Atherton opposes use of the Caltrain Corridor between San Jose and San Francisco and the City of 

Millbrae has raised concerns regarding potential impacts through the City of Millbrae. 

8.2.2 Altamont 

The Altamont Pass supporters include the cities of Oakland, Union City, and Atwater; the town of 

Atherton; the counties of San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Mariposa, and Kern; the California Partnership for the 

San Joaquin Valley; the San Joaquin Regional Policy Council; Sacramento Area Council of Governments; 

San Joaquin County Council of Governments; Tulare County Association of Governments; Altamont 

Commuter Express (ACE); California Department of Parks and Recreation; California Environmental 

Coalition; California State Parks Foundation (CSPF); Planning and Conservation League (PCL); Sierra 

Club; Grassland Water District; Grassland Resources Conservation District; Grassland Conservation, 

Education & Legal Defense Fund; California Outdoor Heritage Alliance; Bay Rail Alliance; Transportation 

Involves Everyone (TIE); San Joaquin COG Citizens Advisory Committee; Tracy Region Alliance for a 

Quality Community; Ducks Unlimited; Transportation Solutions Defense and Education Fund (TRANSDEF); 

California Rail Foundation (CRF); Defenders of Wildlife; Regional Alliance for Transit (RAFT); Citizens’ 

Committee to Complete the Refuge; Train Riders Association of California (TRAC); and a number of 

members of the public representing themselves. 

There are a number of reasons supporters give for preferring the Altamont Pass including: 1) quicker 

travel times between Sacramento/Northern San Joaquin Valley and the Bay Area; 2) best serves the 

Central Valley; 3) more Northern San Joaquin markets served on the Authority’s adopted first phase of 

construction between the Bay Area and Anaheim; 4) higher ridership potential; 5) less potential for 

environmental impacts; 6) avoids impacts on wildlife and sensitive habitat through Pacheco Pass and the 

GEA; 7) serves a greater population/more population along the alignment; 8) best serves ACE corridor 

and reduces traffic along I-580; 9) better service between Bay Area and Southern California (either 

reduced frequency is needed on shared Caltrain alignment or HST trains can be split); 10) best serves 

San Jose since it would be a terminus station and with much faster travel times to commuter markets in 

the Northern San Joaquin Valley; and 11) is less sprawl inducing. 

There are a considerable number of organizations, agencies, and individuals who have expressed concern 

regarding potential impacts on the San Francisco Bay and Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National 

Wildlife Refuge by HST alternatives via the Altamont Pass using a Dumbarton Crossing. These include 

the MTC; BCDC; USEPA; USFWS; Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge; Congress 

members Zoe Lofgren, Michael Honda, Anna Eshoo, and Tom Lantos; State Senators Elaine Alquist and 

Abel Maldanado; Assembly member Jim Beale; Santa Clara County; San Mateo County Transit District 

(SamTrans); San Mateo County Transportation Authority (TA); Peninsula Corridor (Caltrain) Joint Powers 

Board (JPB); San Francisco Bay Trail Project; San Jose Chamber of Commerce; San Francisco Bay Trail 

Project; the City of San Jose; the City of Oakland; and Don Edwards (Member of Congress, 1963-1995). 

The East Bay Regional Park District has raised concerns in regards to potential impacts on nine regional 

parks, in particular the Pleasanton Ridge and Vargas Plateau regional parks, and the Alameda Creek 

Regional Train between Pleasanton and Niles Junction for Altamont Pass alternatives. In addition, the 

City of Fremont opposes the Altamont Pass, and the City of Pleasanton does not support the Altamont 

Pass but remains “open” to terminating Altamont alternatives in Livermore. The MTC and Alameda 

County Supervisor Scott Haggerty also support the investigation of Altamont Pass alternatives terminating 

in Livermore. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 8 Preferred HST Alignments

and Station Location Options 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 8-5

8.2.3 Combined Pacheco and Altamont 

After completing a two-year “Regional Rail” planning process, the MTC has re-confirmed support for the 

Pacheco alignment via the San Francisco Peninsula as “the main HSR express line between Northern and 

Southern California due to several of the reasons stated in Resolution N. 3198: 

• has the highest statewide ridership demand, and best serves HSR’s key market—Northern California 

to Southern California, connecting the two most congested regions in the state 

• provides direct service to all three major cities—San Francisco, San Jose and Oakland 

• avoids construction of a new bay crossing or tube required by the Altamont Pass entry for San 

Francisco service.” 

MTC’s resolution also “endorse(s) the Altamont route as better suited to serve interregional and local 

travel between the Bay Area and the Northern San Joaquin Valley.” It states: 

At the same time the Pacheco pass alignment is being built, the CHSRA should upgrade 

interregional services between Peninsula—Tri Valley—Sacramento & San Joaquin Valley. 

As a first step, ACE service can be improved by adding tracks and improving signaling to 

provide higher speed and more reliable service that would connect with a future BART 

station in Livermore (Greenville Road or Isabel/Stanley based on further BART analyses); 

these improvements would need to be compatible with future HSR. An electrified regional 

train capable of higher speeds, with additional grade separations that would improve road 

circulation, would replace longer-term, ACE service; the trains would also be compatible 

with lightweight equipment operating in the Dumbarton Corridor.... [MTC] request[s] that 

the CHSRA also evaluate an alternative in the Altamont Corridor that terminates HSR at a 

proposed BART Livermore station where HSR passengers could be dispersed to Bay Area 

locations throughout the BART system, together with improved ACE service to Santa Clara 

County... [and] ... request[s] that CHSRA consider seeking additional HSR bond funds 

dedicated to upgrading the Altamont corridor for regional service. 

The Tri-Valley Policy Working Group and Technical Advisory Committee (Tri-Valley PAC) took a similar 

position. Tri-Valley PAC is a partnership that includes the cities of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, 

Danville, San Ramon, and Tracy along with transportation providers LAVTA, ACE, and BART. The TriValley supports “continued study of high speed rail through the Altamont Corridor on the Union Pacific 

corridor PROVIDED: 

a. There are no significant Right-of-Way takes. 

b. There is no major aerial structure through Pleasanton.” 

In addition, the Tri-Valley PAC provided the following comments for consideration by the Authority: 

The Draft Bay Area EIR/EIS includes a Bay Area HSR alignment that would include High 

Speed Train service through the Pacheco Pass and regional overlay service provided 

through the Altamont pass. The Policy Advisory Committee believes that this option may 

present the best way of addressing our concerns and delivering optimal HST service to 

the region as a whole. 

The combined Altamont/Pacheco(Hybrid) alignment option allows HSR to provide frequent 

service along the most direct route between northern and southern California, while still 

serving the important regional transportation corridors in Northern California, including 

those in the Central Valley, the Tri-Valley, and between Sacramento and the Bay Area. 

The Draft EIR/EIS demonstrates that the corridors served by the Altamont alignment 

include some of the greatest travel demand in the entire system. 

While providing these important transportation advantages, a system that provides service 

in both major corridors also mitigates some of the possible negative impacts identified in 

the Draft EIR/EIS. Specifically related to the Tri-Valley’s key concerns, it would improve 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 8 Preferred HST Alignments

and Station Location Options 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 8-6

the likelihood that HST service could be delivered within the existing Union Pacific Rightof-Way without the need for major aerial infrastructure, or significant right-of-way 

acquisition through the developed portions of the Tri-Valley. 

U.S. Congressman Jim Costa stated that he’d rather not view this as one route over another. He would 

rather the Valley see a vision for both, and the Capitol Corridor JPB supports “in principle the concept of 

the two high-speed alignments into and out of the Bay Area. Each alignment would provide a means to 

meet the high-speed travel markets for (1) long distance travelers from Los Angeles/Southern California 

using the Pacheco Pass route and (2) the interregional travelers from the Central Valley using the 

Altamont Pass route.” The MTC recommendations are also supported by the Alameda County Congestion 

Management Agency and Alameda County Supervisor Scott Haggerty. 

While the Silicon Valley Leadership Group and the City of San Jose strongly support the Pacheco Pass and 

the HST link between northern and southern California, they also support high-speed commuter 

service/improvements to ACE service via the Altamont Pass, and while the California Partnership for the 

San Joaquin Valley strongly prefers the Altamont Pass, they also commented that the Authority “evaluate 

the economic feasibility of developing both the Altamont and Pacheco Pass routes to see if each one of 

those routes, on its own merits, will generate an economic surplus. If it does, then we would like to see 

both routes implemented.” They also state, “if it turns out that one of the two routes must be 

implemented first, they cannot be implemented concurrently, then our strong preference is for the 

Altamont route.” However, some members of the public have expressed opposition to the “hybrid” idea 

(Pacheco and Altamont) raising issue with the additional costs and concern that only one pass would be 

implemented. 

The USEPA recommended “eliminating from further consideration a high speed rail alternative connecting 

Bay Area to Central Valley that includes both an Altamont and a Pacheco Pass alignment, termed, 

“Pacheco Pass with Local Service” in the Draft PEIS. This scenario would effectively result in twice the 

habitat fragmentation, noise, and indirect impacts to aquatic resources. This alternative would likely 

result in CWA Section 404 permitting challenges because it is difficult to demonstrate that mountain 

crossings at both Pacheco and Altamont Passes represent the LEDPA given the increased indirect impacts 

to aquatic resources and habitat fragmentation associated with this alternative.” 

8.3 Network Alternatives Evaluation 

The purpose of the HST system is defined in Chapter 1 of the Final Program EIR/EIS as follows: The 

purpose of the Bay Area HST is to provide a reliable high-speed electrified train system that links the 

major Bay Area cities to the Central Valley, Sacramento, and Southern California, and that delivers 

predictable and consistent travel times. Further objectives are to provide interfaces between the HST 

system and major commercial airports, mass transit, and the highway network and to relieve capacity 

constraints of the existing transportation system in a manner sensitive to and protective of the Bay Area 

to Central Valley region’s and California’s unique natural resources. 

Chapter 1 of the Final Program EIR/EIS also outlines the objectives that the Authority has adopted, 

including, “maximize intermodal transportation opportunities by locating stations to connect with local 

transit, airports, and highways” and states that the Authority’s statutory mandate is to plan, build, and 

operate a HST system that is “coordinated with the state’s existing transportation network, particularly 

intercity rail and bus lines, commuter rail lines, urban rail transit lines, highways, and airports.” 

The 21 network alternatives described in this Final Program EIR/EIS present information about overall 

effects of combinations of HST Alignment Alternatives and station location options to implement the HST 

system in the study region. The 21 network alternatives fall among the three basic approaches for 

linking the Bay Area and Central Valley: Altamont Pass (11 network alternatives); Pacheco Pass (six 

network alternatives); and Pacheco Pass with Altamont Pass (local service) (four network alternatives). 

The network alternatives vary in the degree they serve urban areas/centers and international airports. All 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 8 Preferred HST Alignments

and Station Location Options 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 8-7

but one would provide direct HST services to (i.e., include a HST station within) one and up to three of 

the major urban centers in the Bay Area—San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland. Some of the network 

alternatives would provide service to one or more of the three Bay Area international airports at San 

Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose. Connectivity and enhancement of other transit systems (e.g. ACE, 

Caltrain, Capitol Corridor, BART, and Valley Transportation Authority) also vary greatly among the 

network alternatives. 

Overall, implementing the HST system would greatly increase the capacity for intercity and commuter 

travel and reduce existing automobile traffic in specific travel corridors. Full grade-separation along Bay 

Area rail corridors used by the HST would improve local traffic flow and reduce air pollution at existing 

rail crossings. The more extensive the HST system implemented in the Bay Area, the greater the travel 

condition benefits, including increased connectivity to other transit systems, increased convenience, 

increased reliability, and improved travel times. In particular, more direct connections to the region’s 

airports provide increased connectivity for air transportation system riders. 

Recognizing the benefits described above, as well as other attributes, the cities of San Francisco, 

Oakland, and San Jose all strongly support direct HST service to their respective downtowns. This 

support was expressed as comments on the Draft Program EIR/EIS, and is consistent with 

comments/input provided by these cities over the ten years since the Authority was created. MTC, the 

regional transportation planning and programming agency for the Bay Area, supports direct HST service 

to the downtowns of each of these three major Bay Area urban centers. 

A number of network alternatives clearly do not meet the purpose and need for the HST system. The 

Altamont Pass network alternative that terminates in Union City fails since it does not provide direct HST 

service to San Francisco, Oakland, or San Jose (the major Bay Area cities) nor does it provide interface 

with the major commercial airports. Also failing are a Pacheco Pass network alternative that terminates 

in San Jose and three Altamont Pass network alternatives that only serve one of the three major urban 

areas/centers. These four alternatives directly provide HST service to at most only one major Bay Area 

city and one of the region’s major commercial airports. 

8.3.1 Pacheco Pass Network Alternatives Evaluation 

Six representative Pacheco Pass network alternatives were investigated. These six alternatives 

encompass the range of different ways to combine HST Alignment Alternatives and station location 

options to implement the HST system via the Pacheco Pass. All six Pacheco Pass network alternatives 

provide direct service to downtown San Jose. The Pacheco Pass network alternatives consist of: 1) HST 

to San Francisco via the San Francisco Peninsula; 2) HST to Oakland via the East Bay; 3) HST to San 

Francisco via the San Francisco Peninsula and to Oakland via the East Bay (no bay crossing); 4) HST 

terminating in San Jose; 5) HST to San Francisco via the peninsula and then to Oakland via a new 

transbay tube; and 6) HST to Oakland via the East Bay and then to San Francisco via a new transbay 

tube. As previously explained, the alternative that would terminate in San Jose and not serve either San 

Francisco or Oakland directly does not meet the purpose and need for the proposed HST system. 

The Pacheco Pass alternatives with the greatest environmental impacts and greatest construction issues 

are the two alternatives that include a new transbay tube. These alternatives would have over 36 acres 

of potential direct impacts on the San Francisco Bay. To put this into perspective, these alternatives 

would have 40.3–41 ac of potential impacts on waterbodies (lakes + San Francisco Bay), whereas the 

preferred Pacheco Pass alternative (HST to San Francisco via the San Francisco Peninsula) would have 

only 3.8 ac of potential direct impacts. The cost of the additional 8.8-mile HST segment needed to 

implement a new transbay tube is estimated at about $4.6 billion—over $500 million per mile. Moreover, 

there is only slightly higher ridership and revenue potential (about 2% higher ridership or 1.9 million 

passengers per year by 2030) when comparing the transbay tube alternative via the San Francisco 

Peninsula versus the preferred alternative. To implement alternatives that included a new transbay tube, 

extensive coordination would be required with the USACE under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 8 Preferred HST Alignments

and Station Location Options 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 8-8

Act, USFWS, and the California Coastal Commission. Crossing the Bay would also be subject to the 

USACE, CDFG, and BCDC permit process. 

The preferred Pacheco Pass alternative (serving San Francisco via the San Francisco Peninsula) has 

similar potential environmental impacts as the Oakland to San Jose via the East Bay alternative. Both 

alternatives maximize the use of existing transportation corridors and avoid impacts on the San Francisco 

Bay. The preferred alternative to San Francisco would have slightly less potential impacts on wetlands 

(15.6 ac vs. 17.4 ac), waterbodies (3.8 ac vs. 4.5 ac), and streams (20,276 linear ft. vs. 21,788 linear ft.) 

but would have slightly more potential impacts on floodplains (520.8 ac vs. 477.5 ac) and species (plant 

and wildlife), and would potentially impact a greater number of cultural resources (165 vs. 106) than the 

Pacheco Pass alternative to Oakland via the East Bay. Both alternatives would have high ridership 

potential and similar costs. The alternative to downtown San Francisco (Transbay Transit Center) is 

forecast to have about 2.3% (2.17 million riders per year by 2030) higher ridership potential than the 

alternative to Oakland (West Oakland), but is estimated to cost about 6.8% more ($800 million). 

The Oakland and San Jose via the East Bay alternative has considerable logistical constraints. In its 

adopted Regional Rail Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area, the MTC raised certain issues associated with 

an East Bay HST alignment to Oakland and San Jose and are not recommending an East Bay alignment. 

The Authority and FRA examined these and other issues as discussed below and concurred with MTC’s 

evaluation of not recommending an East Bay alignment: 

• Right-of-Way Constraints and Duplicate Investment – Commitments have already been made to 

improve Capitol Corridor service and to extend BART to San Jose but these improvements would not 

be compatible with HST service, which would need to use separate tracks. Non-electric, conventional 

Capitol Corridor trains will continue to share track with standard freight services in the constrained 

UPRR owned right-of-way. When fully developed, BART and Capitol Corridor will provide 

complementary rail options with BART serving more local stops and Capitol Corridor primarily serving 

regional stops. The capital cost of the East Bay line segment is approximately $4.9 billion. 

• Risk of UPRR Right-of-Way Agreement – The risk of reaching an agreement from UPRR to obtain the 

right to construct additional tracks for the HST along the Niles Subdivision where the high-speed 

alignment is proposed between Mission Boulevard and Oakland is high. 

• Potential Environmental Justice Concerns – The environmental screening in the MTC Regional Rail 

Plan indicated potential concerns with construction of a new elevated alignment though existing 

urbanized areas especially in the East Bay between Fremont and Oakland. 

• Right-of-Way Constraints within I-880 – The East Bay alignment segment south of Fremont would 

need to be constructed along I-880 freeway south of Mission Boulevard towards San Jose with the 

potential for a long process with Caltrans to define and construct the elevated HST trackway within 

the freeway right-of-way. Caltrans has serious concerns about construction within the constrained 

median. 

The Pacheco Pass alternative that serves San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose without a new bay 

crossing provides the highest level of connectivity and accessibility to the Bay Area of the Pacheco Pass 

Alternatives by directly serving the three major Bay Area urban centers, serving both the San Francisco 

Peninsula and the East Bay, and providing good connectivity to the region’s three international airports 

(SFO, Oakland, and San Jose). However, this alternative has greater environmental impacts and greater 

costs ($3.6 billion more) than the preferred alternative since it requires over 42 additional miles of HST 

alignment to be constructed along the East Bay and would have the same logistical constraints as 

described above for the Oakland and San Jose via the East Bay alternative. In addition, because this 

alternative would split the frequency of the HST services (express, suburban express, skip-stop, local, and 

regional) between the San Francisco Peninsula and the East Bay, this resulted in somewhat less ridership 

and revenue projected for this alternative as compared to the preferred Pacheco Pass alternative (7.8 

million passengers a year by 2030 representing 8.4% of the preferred alternative’s ridership). 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 8 Preferred HST Alignments

and Station Location Options 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 8-9

The Pacheco Pass alternative to downtown San Francisco via the San Francisco Peninsula is preferred 

because it provides HST direct service to downtown San Francisco, SFO, and the San Francisco Peninsula 

while minimizing potential environmental impacts and logistical constraints by maximizing use of existing 

rail right-of-way through shared-use with improved Caltrain commuter services. The HST is 

complimentary to Caltrain (which intends to use lightweight electrified trains) and would share tracks with 

express Caltrain commuter rail services. In addition, this alternative provides direct service to northern 

California’s major hub airport at SFO and major transit, business, and tourism center at downtown San 

Francisco, and would enable the early implementation of the HST/Caltrain section between San Francisco, 

San Jose, and Gilroy. 

The City and County of San Francisco, San Francisco County Transportation Authority, Peninsula Corridor 

(Caltrain) Joint Powers Board (JPB), San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans), San Mateo County 

Transportation Authority (TA), City of Gilroy, City of Redwood City, County of Monterey, and City of 

Morgan Hill all support HST to San Francisco via San Jose and the San Francisco Peninsula (Caltrain 

Corridor)—the staff recommended alternative. The MTC recommends use of the Pacheco Pass via the 

San Francisco Peninsula “as the main HSR express line between Northern and Southern California” but 

their recommendation also includes a new transbay tube to bring direct service to Oakland. MTC 

recommends that the first step in implementing HST in Northern California and the Bay Area is 

“investment in the Peninsula trackage with regional and high-speed rail funding can make this corridor 

high-speed rail ready,” noting that Caltrain intends to use lightweight electrified trains that would be 

compatible with HST equipment. 

8.3.2 Altamont Pass Network Alternatives Evaluation 

Eleven representative Altamont Pass network alternatives were investigated. These 11 alternatives 

encompass the range of different ways to combine HST Alignment Alternatives and station location 

options to implement the HST system via the Altamont Pass. The Altamont Pass network alternatives 

consist of: 1) HST to San Francisco (via Dumbarton) and San Jose (via I-880); 2) HST to Oakland and 

San Jose via the East Bay; 3) HST to San Francisco (via Dumbarton) and Oakland and San Jose via the 

East Bay; 4) HST terminating in San Jose; 5) HST terminating in to San Francisco; 6) HST terminating in 

Oakland; 7) HST terminating in Union City; 8) HST to San Francisco and San Jose via San Francisco 

Peninsula (and Dumbarton crossing); 9) San Francisco and San Jose, Oakland—no Bay Crossing; 10) 

Oakland and San Francisco—via transbay tube; and 11) San Jose, Oakland and San Francisco—via 

transbay tube. The four Altamont Pass network alternatives that would terminate in Union City or 

provide direct service to only one of the three major urban centers of the Bay Area (San Francisco, San 

Jose, and Oakland) do not meet the purpose and need for the proposed HST system. 

The two Altamont Pass network alternatives that require a new transbay tube would have high potential 

environmental impacts and considerable construction issues. These alternatives would have over 

36 acres of potential direct impacts on the San Francisco Bay. They would have 38.8 ac of potential 

impacts on waterbodies (lakes + San Francisco Bay) whereas the Oakland and San Jose Termini Altamont 

Pass network alternative would have only 2.3 ac of potential direct impacts. The cost of the additional 

8.8-mile HST segment needed to implement a new transbay tube is estimated at about $4.6 billion—over 

$500 million per mile. Moreover, there is only slightly higher ridership and revenue potential (less than 

2% higher ridership or 1.0–1.6 million passengers per year by 2030) when comparing the transbay tube 

alternative via the East Bay versus the related Altamont Pass network alternative that terminates in 

Oakland. To implement alternatives that included a new transbay tube, coordination would be required 

with the USACE under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, USFWS, and the California Coastal 

Commission. Crossing the Bay would also be subject to the USACE, CDFG, and BCDC permit process. 

The Altamont Pass network alternative that serves San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose (with a 

Dumbarton crossing) provides a high level of connectivity and accessibility to the Bay Area by directly 

serving the three major Bay Area urban centers, serving both the San Francisco Peninsula and the East 

Bay, and providing good connectivity to the region’s three international airports (SFO, Oakland, and San 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 8 Preferred HST Alignments

and Station Location Options 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 8-10

Jose). However, this alternative has greater environmental impacts, logistical constraints, and costs 

($2.4 billion more) than the San Francisco and San Jose Termini Altamont Pass alternative since it 

requires nearly 38 additional miles of HST alignment to be constructed along the east bay. In addition, 

because this alternative would further spilt the frequency of the HST services (express, suburban express, 

skip-stop, local, and regional) between San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland (a three way split east of 

Niles Junction) this resulted in somewhat less ridership and revenue projected for this alternative as 

compared to the San Francisco and San Jose Termini Altamont Pass network alternative (about 6.8 

million passengers a year by 2030 representing 7.7% of the other alternative’s ridership). 

The Altamont Pass network alternative that serves San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose—no Bay 

Crossing provides a high level of connectivity and accessibility to the Bay Area by directly serving the 

three major Bay Area urban centers, serving both the San Francisco Peninsula and the East Bay, and 

provides good connectivity to the region’s three international airports (SFO, Oakland, and San Jose). 

However, this alternative has greater environmental impacts and greater costs ($4.5 billion more) than 

the Oakland and San Jose Termini Altamont Pass alternative since it requires over 62 additional miles of 

HST alignment to be constructed along the San Francisco Peninsula. In addition, this alternative results 

in non-competitive travel times from San Francisco, SFO, or Palo Alto/Redwood City to the HST stations 

to the south including Bakersfield, Los Angeles, Anaheim, Riverside, and San Diego. The non-competitive 

travel times to San Francisco and the San Francisco Peninsula resulted in somewhat less ridership and 

revenue projected for this alternative as compared to the Oakland and San Jose Termini Altamont Pass 

network alternative (about 2.8 million passengers a year by 2030 representing over 3.1% of the other 

alternative’s ridership). 

There are considerable trade-offs in comparing the three most promising Altamont Pass network 

alternatives: San Francisco and San Jose Termini; Oakland and San Jose Termini; and San Francisco and 

San Jose—via San Francisco Peninsula. Of these three Altamont Pass network alternatives, the Oakland 

and San Jose Altamont Pass network alternative is estimated to have the least potential environmental 

impacts predominately because the other two alternatives require a Bay crossing at Dumbarton. The 

Oakland and San Jose Termini network alternative is estimated to have fewer potential impacts on 

waterbodies (2.3 ac vs. 39.6 ac), wetlands (12.3 ac vs. 44.4-45.9 ac), special status plant species (40 vs. 

56), special status wildlife species (44 vs. 50), non-wetland waters (14,032 linear ft. vs. 15,947-16,773 

linear ft.), and cultural resources (128 vs. 149-180) than the two network alternatives serving San 

Francisco and San Jose termini. Constructing a new bridge or tube crossing along the Dumbarton 

corridor would involve major construction activities in sensitive wetlands, saltwater marshes, and aquatic 

habitat, requiring special construction methods and mitigations. All the Dumbarton crossing alternatives 

would result in direct impacts on Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge and would 

have potential direct impacts on 15 special-status plant and 21 special-status wildlife species. To 

implement this alternative across the bay, extensive coordination would be required with the USACE 

under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and the California Coastal Commission and the Bay 

crossing would be subject to the USACE, CDFG, and BCDC permit process. BCDC scoping comments note 

that bridge alternatives that could have adverse impacts on Bay resources can only be approved by BCDC 

“if there is not an alternative upland location for the route and if the fill in the minimum necessary to 

achieve the purposes of the project” (BCDC scoping response, December 15, 2005). 

The major issues with Oakland and San Jose network alternative are the logistical constraints previously 

described (Section 8.3.1) along the East Bay, and that it does not provide direct HST service to SFO 

(northern California’s major hub airport), the San Francisco Peninsula (Caltrain Corridor), and downtown 

San Francisco, the major transit, business, and tourism center of the region. Service utilizing the Caltrain 

corridor better satisfies the purpose and need of the HST and also best supports the Authority’s adopted 

phasing plan. The two Altamont Pass alternatives to San Francisco and San Jose have similar 

environmental impacts and costs. However, the San Francisco and San Jose Termini network alternative 

would offer quicker travel times to San Jose than the San Francisco and San Jose—via the San Francisco 

Peninsula (2 hours 19 minutes vs. 2 hours 37 minutes for SJ-LA; and 49 minutes vs. 1 hour and 3 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 8 Preferred HST Alignments

and Station Location Options 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 8-11

minutes SJ-Sacramento). The Peninsula route would have slightly higher ridership (2.85 million 

additional riders). 

The City of Oakland supports direct service to the West Oakland station option via the Altamont Pass. 

The City of Union City supports direct service to Union City via Altamont Pass. The City of Fremont 

opposes the Altamont Pass alternatives, but in particular opposes the east-west alignment through 

Fremont (for Altamont Pass alternatives to San Francisco via Dumbarton). Congress members Zoe 

Lofgren, Michael Honda, Anna Eshoo, and Tom Lantos; State Senators Elaine Alquist and Abel 

Maldanado; and Assembly member Jim Beale as well as Santa Clara County, San Jose Chamber of 

Commerce, Don Edwards, and the City of San Jose all oppose HST alternatives requiring a Dumbarton 

crossing through the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge. The City of Oakland, 

USEPA, USFWS, BCDC, and San Francisco Bay Trail Project also raised concerns regarding potential 

impacts on Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge and a new crossing of the bay. The 

City of Pleasanton, Alameda County Congestion Management Agency, and Alameda County Supervisor 

Scott Haggerty as well as the MTC support the future investigation of terminating Altamont Pass HST 

alternatives in Livermore. Rail advocacy groups such as the Bay Rail Alliance support the Altamont San 

Francisco and San Jose Termini network alternative. 

The Bay Area Regional Rail Plan adopted by MTC favors the San Francisco and San Jose—via the San 

Francisco Peninsula Altamont Pass alternative because this alternative would utilize the Caltrain alignment 

between San Francisco and San Jose and would “maximize the partnership opportunities with CHSRA, 

could be incrementally developed, provides consistency with existing plans and minimizes duplication with 

committed plans and investments” (MTC, Sept 2007, pg 86). However, the MTC preference for Altamont 

also includes an ultimate connection to Oakland from San Francisco via a new transbay tube. 

8.3.3 Pacheco Pass with Altamont Pass (Local Service) Network Alternatives Evaluation 

Four representative Pacheco Pass with Altamont Pass (local service) network alternatives were 

investigated. These four alternatives encompass the range of different ways to combine HST Alignment 

Alternatives and station location options to implement the HST system via the Pacheco Pass while also 

providing local HST service via the Altamont Pass. The Pacheco with Altamont Pass (local service) 

network alternatives consist of: 1) HST with San Francisco and San Jose Termini; 2) HST with Oakland 

and San Jose Termini; 3) HST with San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland Termini (without Dumbarton 

Bridge); and 4) HST terminating in San Jose. The Pacheco Pass and Altamont Pass (local service) 

network alternative that would terminate in San Jose does not serve either San Francisco or Oakland 

directly and does not meet the purpose and need for the proposed HST system. 

The network alternative to Oakland and San Jose is estimated to be the least costly of the remaining 

three network alternatives serving both the Pacheco and Altamont passes ($2.3 billion less than the 

alternative serving San Francisco and San Jose), would have the least environmental impacts, and would 

have high ridership potential, but it would not provide direct HST service to downtown San Francisco, 

SFO, and the San Francisco Peninsula (Caltrain Corridor) between San Francisco and San Jose. The 

network alternative to San Francisco and San Jose is estimated to have the highest ridership potential 

(3.27 million passengers a year by 2030 higher than the Oakland and San Jose alternative) but is also 

estimated to have the highest environmental impacts since it would require a new crossing at 

Dumbarton. The network alternative to San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose (without Dumbarton 

Bridge) would have the highest costs ($4.4 billion more than the Oakland and San Jose alternative), and 

the least ridership potential (8.34 million passenger a year by 2030 less than the San Francisco and San 

Jose alternative), but would provide direct HST service to Oakland, San Francisco, and San Jose and the 

region’s three international airports without requiring a new bay crossing. 

The Pacheco Pass with Altamont Pass (local service) network alternatives do not compare well against 

either the Pacheco Pass or Altamont Pass network alternatives in the Draft Program EIR/EIS for HST 

service to be provided by the Authority. These network alternatives resulted in similar ridership and 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 8 Preferred HST Alignments

and Station Location Options 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 8-12

revenue forecasts (with less revenue than comparable Pacheco Pass network alternatives) while having 

considerably higher capital costs ($4.4–6.0 billion more for comparable terminus station locations). 

Although the Pacheco Pass with Altamont Pass (local service) alternatives would increase connectivity 

and accessibility by potentially providing direct HST service to additional markets, these alternatives 

would have higher environmental impacts, construction issues, and logistical constraints than Altamont or 

Pacheco Pass alternatives. The USEPA concluded that the Pacheco Pass with Altamont Pass (local 

service) network alternatives are not likely to contain the Least Environmentally Damaging Alternative 

(LEDPA). 

8.3.4 Comparison of Pacheco Pass and Altamont Pass Alternatives 

Public Input: There is a wide divergence of opinion for the selection of the alignment between the Bay 

Area and Central Valley with many favoring the Pacheco Pass, many favoring the Altamont Pass, and 

many favoring doing both passes (with the Pacheco serving as the north/south HST connection and 

Altamont primarily serving interregional commuter service between Sacramento/Northern San Joaquin 

Valley and the Bay Area). San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose, the three major urban centers of the 

Bay Area, all want direct HST service. The Central Valley (including Sacramento) and many 

transportation and environmental organizations strongly prefer the Altamont Pass, whereas much of the 

Bay Area (MTC, San Francisco, San Jose, San Francisco Peninsula, and Monterey Bay Area) agencies 

strongly support the Pacheco Pass. Opposition has been raised to potential impacts for both the Pacheco 

Pass (impacts on the GEA, Pacheco Pass, the Town of Atherton, and Millbrae), and the Altamont Pass 

(impacts on the San Francisco Bay, Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge, East Bay 

regional parks, the City of Fremont, City of Livermore, and the City of Pleasanton). 

Ridership and Revenue: The HST ridership and revenue forecasts done by MTC in partnership with 

Authority concluded that both the Pacheco Pass and Altamont Pass network alternatives have high 

ridership and revenue potential. Distinct differences were found between the Pacheco Pass and Altamont 

Pass for certain markets, and the sensitivity tests help in the selection of alignment alternatives and 

station location options within the corridors studied. Nonetheless, while additional forecasts with 

different assumptions may result in somewhat different results, the bottom-line conclusion is expected to 

remain the same: both the Pacheco Pass and Altamont Pass have high ridership potential. This overall 

conclusion is consistent with the previous ridership analysis done for the Authority’s Business Plan (June 

2000). It is the conclusion of this analysis that both the Pacheco Pass and Altamont Pass alternatives 

have high ridership potential and that ridership and revenue do not differentiate between these 

alternatives. 

Capital and Operating Costs: Capital and operating costs are not substantially different between the 

Pacheco Pass and Altamont Pass alternatives that meet the purpose and need of the proposed HST 

system and serve similar termini stations. It is therefore the conclusion of this analysis that capital and 

operating costs do not differentiate between the Pacheco Pass and Altamont Pass alternatives. 

Travel Times/Travel Conditions: Either the Pacheco Pass or Altamont Pass would provide quick, 

competitive travel times between northern and southern California. The Pacheco Pass would provide the 

quickest travel times between the south Bay and southern California (10 minutes less than the Altamont 

alternatives serving San Jose via the East Bay [I-880], and 28 minutes less than the Altamont San 

Francisco and San Jose—via San Francisco Peninsula alternative for express service). The Pacheco Pass 

enables a potential station in southern Santa Clara County (at Gilroy or Morgan Hill), which provides 

superior connectivity and accessibility to south Santa Clara County and the three Monterey Bay counties 

and utilizes the entire Caltrain corridor between San Francisco and Gilroy. San Francisco and San Jose 

would be served with one HST alignment along the Caltrain corridor providing the most frequent service 

to these destinations, whereas the most promising Altamont Pass alternatives would require splitting HST 

services (express, suburban express, skip-stop, local, regional) between two branch lines to serve San 

Jose and either San Francisco or Oakland. The Altamont Pass would provide considerably quicker travel 

times between Sacramento/Northern San Joaquin Valley and San Francisco or Oakland than the Pacheco 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 8 Preferred HST Alignments

and Station Location Options 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 8-13

Pass (41 minutes less between San Francisco and Sacramento for express service). The Altamont 

alternatives using the East Bay to San Jose would have express travel times about 29 minutes less than 

the Pacheco pass between Sacramento and San Jose, while the Altamont San Francisco and San Jose—

via the San Francisco Peninsula alternative would take 15 minutes less than the Pacheco Pass for this 

market. The Altamont Pass would enable a potential Tri-Valley HST station and a potential Tracy HST 

station, which provide superior connectivity to the Tri-Valley/Eastern Alameda County, Contra Costa 

County, and the Tracy area and provide for the opportunity for shared infrastructure with an improved 

ACE commuter service, although additional infrastructure would be necessary for commuter overlay 

service with associated impacts. The Altamont Pass would have more potential Central Valley stations 

served on the Authority’s adopted first phase for construction between the Bay Area and Anaheim (Tracy 

and Modesto). The travel time for direct service and travel conditions would be significantly different 

between the Altamont Pass alternative to Oakland and San Jose in comparison to the other two 

promising Altamont alternatives and the preferred Pacheco Pass alternatives (which directly serve San 

Francisco and San Jose). The Oakland and San Jose alternative would provide superior travel times, 

connectivity and accessibility to Oakland, Oakland International Airport, and the East Bay, but would not 

directly serve downtown San Francisco, SFO, or the San Francisco Peninsula/Caltrain Corridor. 

Constructability Issues and Logistical Constraints: There are constructability issues and logistical 

constraints with both the Pacheco and Altamont pass alternatives. However, the construction related 

issues and logistical constraints associated with the Altamont Pass alternatives are greater than those for 

the Pacheco Pass. All Altamont Pass alternatives have considerable constructability issues through the 

right-of-way constrained Tri-Valley area (Livermore and Pleasanton) and tunneling/seismic issues in the 

Pleasanton Ridge/Niles Canyon area. All Altamont Pass alternatives have tunneling/seismic issues 

(Calaveras Fault) in the Pleasanton Ridge as well as seismic issues in the East Bay (Hayward Fault). For 

direct service to San Francisco, the most promising Altamont Pass alternatives require a new Bay 

Crossing at Dumbarton, which must also go through the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife 

Refuge and the City of Fremont (which opposes construction of the east-west link through Fremont). For 

the Altamont Pass alternative serving Oakland, the MTC concluded that “development of an East Bay 

option with direct service to San Jose and Oakland would include significant right-of-way risk gaining an 

agreement from UPRR to provide access to Oakland.” For the Altamont Pass east bay link to San Jose, 

Caltrans District 4 has commented that use of the I-880 median would result in significant construction 

stage impacts between Fremont and San Jose. The Pacheco Pass requires coordination and shared-use 

on the Caltrain corridor and would have tunneling and environmental issues through the Pacheco Pass, as 

well as require aerial structures and other design refinements and mitigation measures to minimize or

avoid potential impacts on the GEA. 

Environmental Impacts: The preferred Pacheco Pass alternative would have greater potential impacts 

on acres of farmlands than the most promising Altamont Pass alternatives (1,372 ac vs. 758 – 764 ac) 

and potentially impact more acres of floodplains (521 ac vs. 219-318ac) and more linear feet of streams 

(20,276 linear ft vs. 16,824–17,660 linear ft). This alternative would also potentially result in impacts on 

resources within the generally designated GEA and would have the potential to impact wildlife movement. 

The preferred Pacheco Pass alternative would have somewhat less potential impacts for noise and 

vibration and would affect a fewer number of 4(f) and 6(f) resources (16 vs. 20–22) than the most 

promising Altamont Pass alternatives. The differences in the impacts on waterbodies, wetlands, 

nonwetland waters, species, and cultural resources would vary considerably depending upon the 

Altamont Pass alternative. The two Altamont Pass alternatives providing direct service to San Francisco 

would include a new Bay crossing at Dumbarton and would cross areas within the Don Edwards San 

Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge (wetlands and sensitive habitat) and therefore would have 

considerably higher impacts on waters, wetlands, and 4(f) resources than the Pacheco Pass alternative. 

In comparison to these Altamont Pass alternatives, the Pacheco Pass alternative would have considerably 

less potential impacts on waterbodies (3.8 ac vs. 39.6 ac), considerably less potential impacts on 

wetlands (15.6 ac vs. 44.4–45.9 ac), and fewer potential impacts on nonwetland waters (14,395 linear ft. 

vs. 15,947–16,773 linear ft), while having relatively similar potential impacts on the number of special 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 8 Preferred HST Alignments

and Station Location Options 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 8-14

status plant species (58 vs. 56), special status wildlife species (53 vs. 49-50), and cultural resources (165 

vs. 149-180). In comparing the Altamont Pass alternative to Oakland and San Jose along the east bay, 

the Pacheco Pass alternative to San Francisco and San Jose would have slightly more potential impacts 

on waterbodies (3.8 ac vs. 2.3 ac), wetlands (15.6 ac vs. 12.3 ac), and nonwetland waters (14,395 linear 

ft vs. 14,032 linear ft), special-status plant species (58 vs. 40), special-status wildlife species (53 vs. 44), 

and cultural resources (165 vs. 128). The Pacheco Pass Alternative would avoid impacts on the Don 

Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge, and it would include mitigation measures to reduce 

or avoid potential impacts on resources within the GEA and in particular along existing Henry Miller Road 

(see Section 3.15.5). The program-level analysis of impacts to 4(f)/6(f) resources generally supports the 

selection of the preferred Pacheco Pass (San Francisco and San Jose Termini) network alternative, 

although all network alternatives have potential to impact 4(f)/6(f) resources. 

8.4 The MTC’s “Regional Rail Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area” 

The MTC, BART, Caltrain, and the Authority, along with a coalition of rail passenger and freight 

operators, prepared a comprehensive “Regional Rail Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area” (Plan) adopted 

by MTC in September 2007. The Plan establishes a long-range vision to create a Bay Area rail network 

that addresses the anticipated growth in transportation demand and meets that demand. This Plan 

examines ways to incorporate expanded passenger train services into existing rail systems, improve 

connections to other trains and transit, expand the regional rapid transit network, increase rail capacity, 

coordinate rail investment around transit-friendly communities and businesses, and identify functional 

and institutional consolidation opportunities. The plan also includes an analysis of potential high-speed 

rail routes between the Bay Area and the Central Valley. The Plan is separate from the Authority’s Final 

Program EIR/EIS but is accounted for in Section 3.17, “Cumulative Impacts,” of the Final Program 

EIR/EIS. The Plan, which was issued and approved during the Draft Program EIR/EIS comment period, 

provides useful additional information for consideration as part of the Authority’s decision-making 

process. 

As the HST system involves major infrastructure investment, the Plan identifies and evaluates options for 

providing overlay services (use of the HST infrastructure for regional rail service with additional 

investments in facilities and compatible rolling stock). Overlay services are considered for each HST 

Network Alternative. Regional overlay operations on HST lines could provide service to additional local 

stations along the HST lines. Such local stops typically would be developed as four-track sections with a 

pair of outside platforms for regional trains and two express tracks (no platforms) in the center. The 

extent of the four-track sections would depend on the prevailing speed of the line for statewide service as 

well as the spacing and location of the local stops. The regional overlay services would be operated with 

compatible equipment, but the average speeds would be lower and the overall travel times would be 

greater than the HST because of the additional stops. Additional investment would be necessary to 

provide the infrastructure for such regional overlay services. 

The Plan concludes that the Bay Area needs a Regional Rail Network. “As the BART system becomes 

more of a high-frequency, close stop urban subway system, it needs to be complemented with a larger 

regional express network serving longer-distance trips” and “High-Speed Rail complements and supports 

development of regional rail—a statewide high-speed train network would enable the operation of fast, 

frequent regional services along the high-speed lines and should provide additional and accelerated 

funding where high-speed and regional lines are present in the same corridor” (MTC, 2007 Regional Rail 

Plan, pg ES-3). 

The Plan concludes that “an Altamont alignment would have higher regional ridership (between points 

located from Merced and north) of 20-million trips in Year 2030 vs. about 16-million trips for a Pacheco 

alignment—by contrast, a Pacheco alignment would have higher ridership between Northern California 

and Southern California (between points located from Fresno and south) of 40-million trips in Year 2030 

vs. about 34-million trips for an Altamont alignment.” In addition, “if either Altamont or Pacheco were 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 8 Preferred HST Alignments

and Station Location Options 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 8-15

selected as the sole option, 4-track sections would be needed at regional stations as well as approaching 

and departing regional stops. These four-track sections would be required along the Altamont route 

between Fremont and Tracy and along the Pacheco route between San Jose and Gilroy. By contrast, 

with an Altamont + Pacheco option, two-track sections would suffice from San Jose to Gilroy and from 

Fremont to Tracy; additionally, a lower-cost bridge connection at the Dumbarton crossing could be 

developed thereby reducing the cost of a combination alternative by as much as $1 billion compared to 

simply building both of the alignments separately” (MTC, 2007, Regional Rail Plan, pg ES-17). The Plan 

also concludes that, “Regardless of which Altamont or Pacheco options would be developed, an initial 

phase of investment in the Peninsula alignment between San Jose and San Francisco would help make 

Caltrain, with an express/limited stop ridership potential of 6.3 million riders per year in 2030 ‘high speed 

rail ready’” (MTC 2007, Regional Rail Plan, pg. ES-18). 

8.5 Preferred HST Network Alternative 

The Authority identifies as the preferred alternative: 

• Pacheco Pass to San Francisco (via San Jose) for the proposed HST system (see Figure 

8.5-1) 

The Pacheco Pass alternative serving San Francisco and San Jose termini best meets the purpose and 

need for the proposed HST system. Key reasons include: 

1. The Pacheco Pass minimizes impacts on wetlands, waterbodies, and the environment. 

The statewide HST system should provide direct service to Northern California’s major hub airport at 

SFO and major transit, business, and tourism center at downtown San Francisco. The Pacheco Pass 

alternative serving San Francisco and San Jose termini has the least potential environmental impacts 

overall while providing direct HST service to downtown San Francisco, SFO, and the San Francisco 

Peninsula (Caltrain Corridor) and minimizes construction issues which can lead to delay and cost 

escalation. 

The Pacheco Pass enables San Francisco, SFO, and the San Francisco Peninsula to be directly served 

without a crossing of the San Francisco Bay. Altamont Pass alternatives requiring a San Francisco 

Bay crossing would have the greatest potential impacts on the San Francisco Bay and have high 

capital costs and constructability issues. The Dumbarton Crossing would also have the greatest 

potential impacts on wetlands and the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge. To 

implement these alternatives, extensive coordination would be required with the USACE under 

Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and the California Coastal Commission, and the Bay crossing 

would be subject to the USACE, CDFG, and BCDC permit process. A number of agencies, 

organizations, and individuals have raised concerns regarding to the construction of a HST crossing of 

the San Francisco Bay. These include the MTC, BCDC, USEPA, USFWS, Congress members Zoe 

Lofgren, Michael Honda, Anna Eshoo, and Tom Lantos, State Senators Elaine Alquist and Abel 

Maldonado, and Assembly member Jim Beale as well as Santa Clara County, San Mateo County 

Transit District (SamTrans), San Mateo County Transportation Authority (TA), Peninsula Corridor 

(Caltrain) Joint Powers Board (JPB), San Francisco Bay Trail Project, San Jose Chamber of Commerce, 

the City of San Jose, the City of Oakland, and Don Edwards (Member of Congress, 1963–1995). 

While a considerable number of comments have raised concerns about potential environmental 

impacts for Pacheco Pass alternatives (in particular relating to potential impacts on the GEA), HST via 

the Pacheco Pass is feasible and preferred because it would result overall in fewer impacts when 

compared to the Altamont Pass alternatives with a Bay crossing. Additionally, the Pacheco Pass 

alternative would include various measures to avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate environmental 

impacts to the extent feasible and would offer opportunities for environmental improvements along 

the HST right of way that could be accomplished during project design, construction, and operation, 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 8 Preferred HST Alignments

and Station Location Options 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 8-16

including through use of tunnels and aerial structures where appropriate. This contrasts with the 

more uncertain regulatory approvals that would be needed for crossings of San Francisco Bay and 

the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge. Identification of a preferred alternative 

in the Final Program EIR/EIS is required for NEPA compliance. Since the identified preferred 

alternative would have the least overall environmental impacts, it is also identified as the 

environmentally superior alternative for CEQA compliance and the environmentally preferable 

alternative under NEPA. 

2. The Pacheco Pass best serves the connection between the Northern and Southern 

California. 

Operational benefits result in greater frequency and capacity:

San Francisco and San Jose would be served with one HST alignment along the Caltrain corridor 

providing the most frequent service to these destinations, whereas the most promising Altamont Pass 

alternatives would split HST services (express, suburban express, skip-stop, local, regional) between 

two branch lines to serve San Jose and either San Francisco or Oakland—reducing the total capacity 

of the system to these markets. The proposed HST system already has two locations where there 

are branch splits (north of Fresno—to Sacramento and the Bay Area, and south of Los Angeles Union 

Station—to Orange County and the Inland Empire). Avoiding additional branch splits in the HST 

alignment would benefit train operations and service. 

Provides a superior connection between the South Bay and Southern California 

The Pacheco Pass enables the shortest connection to be constructed between the South Bay and 

Southern California with the quickest travel times between these markets. A southern Santa Clara 

County HST station increases connectivity and accessibility for the South Bay and the three county 

Monterey Bay area. 

Fewer stations between the Major Metropolitan Areas 

The core purpose of the HST system is to serve passenger trips between the major metropolitan 

areas of California. There is a critical tradeoff between the accessibility of the system to potential 

passengers that is provided by multiple stations and stops, and the resulting HST travel times. 

Additional or more closely spaced stations (even with limited service) would lengthen travel times, 

reduce frequency of service, and the ability to operate both express and local services. The Pacheco 

Pass has the advantage of fewer stops through the high-speed trunk of the system between San 

Francisco or San Jose and Southern California, the most populated regions of the state. 

Between Merced and Gilroy, the high-speed trains will be maintaining speeds well over 200 mph. 

The fact that there is no significant population concentrations between Merced and Gilroy along the 

Pacheco Pass is a positive attribute since there are fewer communities and hence fewer community 

impacts. Additionally there will be no HST station between Gilroy and Merced. As a result, the 

Pacheco Pass minimizes the potential for sprawl inducement as compared with the Altamont Pass. 

Minimizes Logistical Constraints 

The Pacheco Pass avoids construction issues and logistical constraints through the Tri-Valley and 

Alameda County. The Tri-Valley PAC has raised serious concerns with all the Altamont Pass 

alternatives regarding land use compatibility and right-of-way constraints and the need for aerial 

structures through the Tri-Valley. All Altamont Pass alternatives have tunneling/seismic issues 

(Calaveras Fault) in the Pleasanton Ridge/Niles Canyon area as well as seismic issues in the East Bay 

(Hayward Fault). Both the City of Fremont and the City of Pleasanton are opposed to HST 

alternatives through these cities because of potential environmental issues, right-of-way constraints, 

and other logistical issues. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Bay Area to Central Valley HST P

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 8 Preferred HST Alignments

and Station Location Options 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 8-17

3. The Pacheco Pass best utilizes the Caltrain corridor. 

The Pacheco Pass alternative would enable the early, incremental implementation of the entire 

Caltrain Corridor section between San Francisco, San Jose, and Gilroy. The HST system is 

complimentary to Caltrain and would utilize the Caltrain right-of-way and share tracks with express 

Caltrain commuter rail services. Caltrain intends to use lightweight, electrified trains that would be 

compatible with HST equipment. Because it utilizes the Caltrain corridor, environmental impacts 

would be minimized. The Authority’s phasing plan identifies the Caltrain Corridor (between San 

Francisco and San Jose) as allowing the Authority to maximize the use of local and regional funds 

dedicated to train service improvements, and thereby helping to reduce the need for state funds.

4. The Pacheco Pass is strongly supported by the Bay Area region, cities, agencies, and 

organizations. 

Many of the Bay Area local and regional governments, transportation agencies, and business 

organizations strongly support the Pacheco Pass alternative to San Francisco via San Jose and the 

Caltrain Corridor. As described in Section 8.2.1, there is strong local and regional government 

support along the Pacheco Pass alignment throughout the Bay Area. This support is critical towards 

implementing this major infrastructure project through the heavily urbanized Bay Area linking San 

Francisco, San Jose and Gilroy. 

The Central Valley (including Sacramento) and many transportation and environmental organizations 

are united in strongly preferring the Altamont Pass. However, to reach the major markets in the Bay 

Area, the Altamont Pass alternatives must go through Alameda County, including Livermore and 

Pleasanton in the Tri-Valley and Fremont. The Tri-Valley PAC (a partnership that includes the cities 

of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, Danville, San Ramon, and Tracy along with transportation providers 

LAVTA, ACE, and BART) has raised serious concerns regarding right-of-way constraints and the need 

for aerial structures through the Tri-Valley. The Tri-Valley PAC supports HST service through the 

Pacheco Pass and “regional overlay service provided through the Altamont pass.” They believe that 

this option may present the best way of addressing their concerns and delivering optimal HST service 

to the region as a whole. The Alameda County Congestion Management Agency and Alameda 

County Supervisor Scott Haggerty both support the MTC recommendation for the Pacheco alignment 

via the San Francisco Peninsula as the main HST express line between Northern and Southern 

California while also supporting upgraded interregional services between the Bay Area—Sacramento 

and the San Joaquin Valley via the Altamont Pass. The City of Fremont opposes the Altamont Pass 

alternative as does the City of Pleasanton although Pleasanton remains “open” to terminating 

Altamont alternatives in Livermore. The concerns through Alameda County are significant enough 

that the MTC, Alameda County Congestion Management Agency, and Alameda County Supervisor 

Scott Haggerty have requested that “the CHSRA also evaluate an alternative in the Altamont Corridor 

that terminates HSR at a proposed BART Livermore station”—even with the main HST express line 

using the Pacheco Pass. 

8.6 Preferred HST Alignment Alternatives and Station Location Options for 

the Preferred Pacheco Pass Network Alternative 

8.6.1 San Francisco to San Jose 

A. PREFERRED ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVE 

• Caltrain Corridor (Shared Use) 

Analysis

The Draft Program EIR/EIS analyzed one alignment alternative between San Francisco and San Jose 

along the San Francisco Peninsula that would utilize the Caltrain rail right-of-way and share tracks 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 8 Preferred HST Alignments

and Station Location Options 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 8-18

with express Caltrain commuter rail services. The Caltrain Corridor (Shared Use) is the preferred 

alignment alternative for direct service to San Francisco and San Francisco International Airport 

(SFO). 

The alignment between San Francisco and San Jose is assumed to have 4 tracks, with the two middle 

tracks being shared by Caltrain and HST and the outer tracks used by Caltrain. The HST could 

operate at maximum speeds of 100–125 mph along the Peninsula providing 30-minute express travel 

times between San Francisco and San Jose. Environmental impacts would be minimized since this 

alignment utilizes the existing Caltrain right-of-way. This alignment alternative would increase 

connectivity and accessibility to San Francisco, the Peninsula, and SFO, the hub international airport 

for northern California. The HST system would provide a safer, more reliable, energy efficient 

intercity mode along the San Francisco Peninsula while improving the safety, reliability, and 

performance of the regional commuter service because of the fully grade separated tracks with 

fencing to prevent intrusion, additional tracks, and a state-of-the-art signaling and communications 

system. The HST alignment would greatly increase the capacity for intercity and commuter travel 

and reduce automobile traffic. 

Many comments in favor of the proposed HST on the San Francisco Peninsula were received from 

agencies and the public, including MTC, the City of San Francisco, Caltrain JPB, SamTrans, the 

Transbay Transit Center JPB, the City of Santa Clara, the County of Santa Clara, the City of Morgan 

Hill, and the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce. There was also opposition to improvements on 

the Caltrain corridor raised by some members of the public. The City of Menlo Park supported 

investigating options to avoid the San Francisco Peninsula area by substituting existing transit 

systems for the HST, and the Town of Atherton supports options that would avoid HST service 

through the Town of Atherton as well as investigating trench concepts through the Town of Atherton 

at the project level. 

B. PREFERRED STATION LOCATION OPTIONS 

• Downtown San Francisco Terminus: Transbay Transit Center 

Analysis

The Transbay Transit Center site is the preferred station location option for the San Francisco HST 

Terminal. The Transbay Transit Center would offer greater connectivity to San Francisco and the Bay 

Area than the 4th and King site (about a mile from the financial district) because of its location in the 

heart of downtown San Francisco and since it would serve as the regional transit hub for San 

Francisco. The Transbay Transit Center is located in the financial district where many potential HST 

passengers could walk to the station. The Transbay Transit Center is also expected to emerge as the 

transit hub for all major services to downtown San Francisco, with the advantage of direct 

connections to BART (1 block from the terminus), Muni, and regional bus transit (SamTrans, AC 

Transit, and Golden Gate Transit). Moreover, the Transbay Transit Center is compatible with existing 

and planned development and is the focal point of the Transbay redevelopment plan that includes 

extensive high-density residential, office, and commercial/retail development. Sensitivity analysis on 

the Pacheco Pass “Base” forecasts (low-end forecasts) concluded that the Transbay Transit Center 

would attract about 1 million more annual passengers a year by 2030 than the 4th and King station 

location option. 

The capital costs needed for the HST component of the Transbay Transit Center (including the 

1.3-mile extension) is estimated to be similar to the estimated costs for the 4th and King option. 

Since the rail component would be shared with Caltrain services, the Transbay Joint Powers Authority 

funding plan assigns only a portion of the rail related Transbay Transit costs to the HST system. The 

rail facilities planned for the Transbay Transit Center are limited to 6 tracks and 3 platforms; 

however, Caltrain is planning to continue using the existing 4th and King terminal. The Authority’s 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 8 Preferred HST Alignments

and Station Location Options 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 8-19

operational analysis indicated that to serve all of the HST trains proposed in the Authority’s 

operational plan, four tracks and two island platforms would have to be dedicated to HST service. 

Further cooperative operations planning analysis of Transbay terminal rail capacity is needed to 

determine the most efficient mix and scheduling of both HST and Caltrain commuter services. 

Public and agency comments have largely favored the Transbay Transit Center site. The City of San 

Francisco, the Transbay Terminal JPB, San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans), the Peninsula 

Corridor (Caltrain) Joint Powers Board ( JPB), San Mateo County Transportation Authority (TA), the 

San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, and AC Transit all submitted comments in favor of the 

Transbay Terminal site. 

• San Francisco Airport Connector Station: Millbrae (SFO) 

Analysis

SFO serves as the “hub” airport for international travel in Northern California and is located about 

12 miles south of downtown San Francisco. The conceptual design is to link to SFO at the Millbrae 

Caltrain/BART station location option which is adjacent to SFO (but not directly at the airport). This 

multi-modal station would link to the airport by the existing BART connection and could possibly be 

reached in the future by the airport people mover system. The Millbrae (SFO) HST station supports 

the objectives of the HST project by providing an interface with the northern California hub airport 

for national and international flights. The Millbrae (SFO) is the preferred HST airport connector 

station on the San Francisco peninsula. 

• Mid-Peninsula Station: Continue to investigate both potential sites and working with local 

agencies and the Caltrain JPB determine whether a Mid-Peninsula station site should be 

recommended. 

Analysis

The Palo Alto and Redwood City station location options would both be multi-modal stations, with 

similar costs, construction issues, right-of-way issues, and potential environmental impacts. The 

Redwood City station would have slightly more riders (0.06 million by 2030), but the Palo Alto station 

would greater connectivity The City of Redwood City and the Redwood City Chamber of Commerce 

support the Redwood City station location option. Future project-level studies should continue to 

investigate both potential sites and working with local agencies and the Caltrain JPB determine 

whether a Mid-Peninsula station site should be recommended. 

8.6.2 San Jose to Central Valley: Pacheco Pass 

A. PREFERRED ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVE 

• Pacheco Pass via Henry Miller Road (UPRR Connection). At the project-level, however, the 

Authority will continue to seek and evaluate alignment alternatives (both to the north and south 

of Henry Miller Road) utilizing the Pacheco Pass that would minimize or avoid impacts to 

resources in the GEA. The Final Program EIR/EIS has no Los Banos Station and the Authority 

has reiterated and expanded its commitment that there will be no station between Gilroy and 

Merced. 

Analysis

The Pacheco Pass via Henry Miller (UPRR Connection) alignment alternative would provide slightly 

higher ridership potential, provide the fastest travel times and the most direct link between the Bay 

Area and Southern California (3-4 minutes faster), have slightly less capital costs, and would 

generally parallel Henry Miller Road, an existing roadway corridor through the environmentally 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 8 Preferred HST Alignments

and Station Location Options 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 8-20

sensitive areas in the Central Valley (resulting in fewer potential severance impacts), while having 

similar potential environmental impacts as the other Pacheco Pass alignment alternatives evaluated. 

The GEA North alignment alternative is estimated to have higher potential visual impacts (medium vs. 

low), severance impacts, and cultural impacts than either Henry Miller alignment alternative. 

Potential impacts on farmlands, streams, lakes/waterbodies, and 4(f) and 6(f) resources are 

estimated to be about the same for each alignment alternative. The GEA North alignment alternative 

is estimated to have higher potential impacts on wetlands (17.96 ac vs. 11.61 ac), but less potential 

impacts on non-wetland waters (6,771 linear ft vs. 10,588 linear ft.) when compared to the Henry 

Miller (UPRR Connection) alignment alternative. Both alignment alternatives would have the potential 

to impact special-status plant and wildlife species. While both alignment alternatives would likely 

result in impacts on the GEA, the GEA North alignment alternative would have greater impacts on 

publicly owned lands and be more disruptive to wildlife movement patterns than the Henry Miller 

Road alignment alternative. The GEA North alignment alternative would be on a new alignment and 

bisect the GEA and result in a new barrier to wildlife movement. The Henry Miller alignment 

alternative would be elevated through large portions of the GEA parallel to an existing roadway that, 

along with a nearby canal, already bisects the GEA and disrupts wildlife movement. The Henry Miller 

alignment alternative would provide greater opportunities for mitigation and environmental 

improvements for wildlife. 

The Authority has received a considerable amount of input regarding each of the three alignment 

alternatives investigated for the “San Jose to Central Valley” corridor. Most of these comments are in 

regard to concerns over potential impacts on the GEA including comments from the Grassland Water 

District, Grassland Resources Conservation District, Grassland Conservation, Education & Legal 

Defense Fund, USFWS, CDFG, and Ducks Unlimited. 

As noted above, the comments from these agencies and organizations concerned potential impacts 

on special status species and biological resources including the San Joaquin kit fox, waterfowl, 

amphibians, and plants; vernal pools; and wetlands that may be affected by the Pacheco Pass via 

Henry Miller Road (UPRR Connection) either through or near the GEA, in the San Luis National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex, on state or federal-owned lands, and on other conservation areas, such as 

private lands subject to conservation easements. The biological analysis for this EIR/EIS was 

conducted at a program level and identifies the need for field reconnaissance-level surveys to be 

conducted in the future at the project level. These future surveys will determine specific habitat 

conditions and impacts along alignment alternatives and surrounding areas and will identify 

specifically where impacts on special-status species could occur, leading eventually to focused species 

surveys. The Pacheco section of the HST system will be further designed at the project-level to avoid 

or minimize potential impacts. Broad program mitigation measures have been identified and will be 

further refined at the project level that will mitigate most of the impacts identified by these agencies 

and organizations. The Authority and FRA will continue coordination with all agencies and 

organizations involved to identify specific issues and develop solutions that avoid, minimize, and 

mitigate potential biological impacts. 

Concerns have been raised by the Grasslands Water District, the Sierra Club, and others regarding 

potential impacts on the GEA by a potential HST station to serve Los Banos and/or a maintenance 

facility in the vicinity Los Banos along the Henry Miller Road alignment alternative. Between Merced 

and Gilroy, the high-speed trains will be maintaining speeds well over 200 mph. As previously noted, 

the fact that there is no population between Merced and Gilroy along the Pacheco Pass is a positive 

attribute for HST operations since there are fewer communities and hence fewer community impacts. 

The Authority’s certified Statewide Program EIR/EIS states, “The Authority has determined that the 

Pacheco Pass alignment HST station at Los Banos (Western Merced County) should not be pursued in 

subsequent environmental reviews because of low intercity ridership projections for this site, limited 

connectivity and accessibility, and potential impacts to water resources and threatened and 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 8 Preferred HST Alignments

and Station Location Options 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 8-21

endangered species. Although the City of Los Banos supports the Pacheco Pass alignment with a 

potential station at Los Banos, considerable public and agency opposition has been expressed about 

a potential Los Banos station because of its perceived potential to result in growth related impacts” 

(Page 6A-9). This Final Program EIR/EIS has no Los Banos Station, and the Authority has reiterated 

and expanded its commitment that there will be no station between Gilroy and Merced. In addition, 

there are no maintenance and storage facilities considered in the Los Banos area (or in the vicinity of 

the GEA) as part of this Final Program EIR/EIS (see Section 2.5.3), and the Merced (Castle AFB) site 

has been identified as the preferred location within the study area for a maintenance facility (see 

Section 8.6.4). 

From a biological perspective, the Pacheco Pass via Henry Miller Road (UPRR Connection) is the 

recommended preferred alignment alternative because the measures that would be necessary to 

avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate biological impacts could be accomplished during project design, 

construction, and operation, and this alignment alternative offers greater opportunities for 

environmental improvement (see Section 3.15.5). 

B. PREFERRED STATION LOCATION OPTIONS 

• Downtown San Jose Terminus: Diridon Station 

Analysis

Diridon Station is the preferred HST station location option for downtown San Jose and the Southern 

Bay Area, serving Caltrain, ACE Commuter Rail, the Capitol Corridor, Amtrak long distance services, 

VTA buses and light rail, and a possible future link to BART (from Fremont). Diridon Station is a 

multi-modal hub that maximizes connectivity to downtown San Jose, San Jose International Airport 

(Diridon Station is just over 3 miles from San Jose International Airport and the City of San Jose 

expects there will be a direct local rail line connecting these to two major transportation hubs), and 

the southern Bay Area, and would have high ridership potential. The Authority identifies the Diridon 

Station as the preferred HST station location option for San Jose and the southern Bay Area. Diridon 

Station is favored by the City of San Jose and the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). 

• Southern Santa Clara County: Gilroy Station (Caltrain) 

Analysis

Gilroy (Caltrain) Station is the preferred HST station location option to serve Southern Santa Clara 

County and the Monterey Bay Area. This station location option would provide the highest 

accessibility and connectivity for these regions and would have the highest ridership potential. 

8.6.3 Central Valley 

A. PREFERRED ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVE 

• UPRR N/S alignment alternative. However, at the project-level, the Authority would continue to 

evaluate the BNSF alignment alternative because of the uncertainty of negotiating with the UPRR 

for use of some of their right-of-way, and would continue investigation of alignments/linkages to 

a potential maintenance facility at Castle AFB.

Analysis

The alignment alternatives considered for the “Central Valley Alignment” generally followed the two 

existing freight corridors of the UPRR and the BNSF. With that in mind, HST impacts throughout the 

Central Valley that have already been reduced and avoided could be further avoided and minimized 

by sharing the existing freight railroad right-of-way. If a decision were made to proceed with the 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 8 Preferred HST Alignments

and Station Location Options 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 8-22

HST system, the Authority would seek agreements with freight operators to utilize portions of the 

existing rail right-of-way to the greatest feasible extent. 

The UPRR alignment alternative would have high potential ridership for both the Pacheco Pass and 

Altamont Pass corridors and would serve potential downtown station sites at Modesto and Merced. 

This alignment alternative would provide the highest connectivity and accessibility for this part of the 

Central Valley and would best meet the Authority’s adopted transit-oriented development criteria for 

station location options by serving the downtowns of these Central Valley cities. However, the UPRR 

has expressed opposition to the use of its right-of-way. 

The UPRR alignment alternative would have somewhat higher potential noise and visual impacts and 

more potential impacts on cultural resources (67 vs. 17-28) since it goes through more urban areas, 

but would have somewhat fewer potential impacts on farmlands (535 ac vs. 776-838 ac), 

lakes/waterbodies (0.0 ac vs. 1.5-1.6 ac), wetlands (3.04 ac vs. 3.11-3.76 ac) and non-wetland 

waters (7,161 linear ft vs. 9,094–10,528 linear ft), and floodplains (124.4 ac vs. 158.2-191.1 ac) than 

the BNSF alignment alternatives. 

B. PREFERRED STATION LOCATION OPTIONS 

• Modesto: Downtown Modesto 

Analysis

The Downtown Modesto Station is the preferred HST station location option for Modesto since it 

maximizes connectivity and accessibility to downtown Modesto and would best meet the Authority’s 

adopted transit-oriented development criteria for station location options by serving the downtown of 

this Central Valley city. This option is expected to have slightly higher ridership potential and is more 

compatible with surrounding land uses than the Amtrak Briggsmore site with similar costs and 

environmental impacts. The Downtown Modesto Station is favored by the City of Modesto and the 

San Joaquin County Council of Governments. The Amtrak Briggsmore site would need to continue to 

be investigated as a part of future project-level analysis since it would be the station site to serve the 

Modesto area for the BNSF alignment alternative. 

• Merced: Downtown Merced 

Analysis

The Downtown Merced Station is the preferred HST station location option for the Merced area since 

it maximizes connectivity and accessibility to downtown Merced and would best meet the Authority’s 

adopted transit-oriented development criteria for station location options by serving the downtown of 

this Central Valley city. This option is expected to have less potential impacts on farmlands (0 ac vs. 

12 ac) and is more compatible with surrounding land uses than the Castle AFB site with similar costs, 

ridership, and environmental impacts. The Castle AFB site would need to continue to be investigated 

as a part of future project-level analysis since it could be the station site to serve the Merced area for 

the BNSF alignment alternative. The Castle AFB is recommended as the preferred site for the 

maintenance facility within the study region. 

8.6.4 Maintenance Facilities 

A. PREFERRED LOCATION WITHIN STUDY AREA 

• Merced area (Castle AFB) 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 8 Preferred HST Alignments

and Station Location Options 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 8-23

Analysis

The preferred maintenance and storage facility location to support the HST fleet in the study region is 

the Merced area (Castle AFB). The number of maintenance facilities needed for the statewide 

system, their locations, and sites will be further defined at the project level. Two locations were 

considered for “Fleet Storage/Service and Inspection/Light Maintenance” within the study region: (1) 

West Oakland; and (2) Merced (near or at Castle AFB). There is strong support in the Merced region 

(Merced County, U.C. Merced, Congressman Cardoza, Merced County HSR Committee, and the 

Merced County Association of Relaters) for the maintenance facility. The West Oakland site would 

not serve the preferred Pacheco Pass alternative but should be considered as a part of future 

Regional Rail/HST project via the Altamont corridor. Program-level evaluation considered only a site 

in the Bay Area at West Oakland as representative of system maintenance needs in the Bay Area. 

Possible Bay Area locations and sites for fleet storage/service and inspection/light maintenance 

facility along the preferred HST alternative between Gilroy and San Francisco will be considered as 

part of project-level engineering and environmental review. 

8.6.5 San Francisco Bay Crossings 

A. PREFERRED ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVE 

• No Bay crossing for the proposed HST system. 

Analysis

The preferred alternative has no San Francisco Bay crossing. The Trans Bay Crossing between 

Oakland and San Francisco is estimated to result in potential direct impacts on 20.07–22.1 acres of 

Bay Waters and indirect impacts on 228–235.5 acres of waterbodies. The cost associated with this 

approximately 7-mile crossing is estimated at over $5 billion (over $700 million per mile) with a 

ridership increase of up to about 2%. To implement this alignment alternative, extensive 

coordination would be required with the USACE under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and 

the California Coastal Commission and crossing the Bay would be subject to the USACE, CDFG, and 

BCDC permit process. 

The Dumbarton Crossing would result in potential direct impacts on 33.9–55.4 acres of wetlands 

(predominately through the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge) and direct 

impacts of 2,361–3117 linear feet of Bay waters. All of the Dumbarton alignment alternatives are 

estimated to have high noise impacts where the alignment is predominately on aerial structure 

through Fremont, and the bridge alignment alternatives (high bridge and low bridge) would have 

high potential noise and vibration impacts throughout the alignment. The cost associated with this 

approximately 19–21.7-mile crossing is estimated at $1.5 billion (low bridge) to over $3 billion (tube). 

With the low-bridge alternative, HST service would be interrupted by water traffic, adversely 

impacting the reliability and service quality of the HST system. Constructing a new bridge or tube 

crossing along the Dumbarton corridor would involve major construction activities in sensitive 

wetlands, saltwater marshes, and aquatic habitat, requiring special construction methods and 

mitigations. All the alignment alternatives would result in direct impacts on Don Edwards San 

Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge and would have potential direct impacts on 15 special-status 

plant and 21 special-status wildlife species. To implement this alignment alternative across the bay, 

extensive coordination would be required with the USACE under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors 

Act and the California Coastal Commission and the Bay crossing would be subject to the USACE, 

CDFG, and BCDC permit process. BCDC scoping comments note that bridge alignment alternatives 

that could have adverse impacts on Bay resources can only be approved by BCDC “if there is not an 

alternative upland location for the route and if the fill in the minimum necessary to achieve the 

purposes of the project” (BCDC scoping response, December 15, 2005). The Authority has received 

comments signed by 5 members of Congress and 4 members of the California Legislature stating that 

any alignment alternative requiring construction through the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 8 Preferred HST Alignments

and Station Location Options 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 8-24

National Wildlife Refuge with additional impacts on the San Francisco Bay and Palo Alto shore of the 

Bay should be rejected. The City of Fremont opposes the Dumbarton Crossing alignment alternatives 

because of the potential impacts on Fremont neighborhoods. 

The MTC supports a new Transbay Tube between San Francisco and Oakland (via the San Francisco 

Peninsula) and the Town of Atherton supports a new Transbay Tube between Oakland and San 

Francisco (via the East Bay). 

8.7 Altamont Pass Project 

The Altamont Pass provides superior travel times between Sacramento/Northern San Joaquin Valley 

and the Bay Area and is strongly supported by the Central Valley. Many of the comments received in 

support of the Altamont Pass are related to its great potential for serving long-distance commuters 

between the Central Valley and the Bay Area. As indicated by the comments received by the TriValley PAC, many of the negative impacts associated with construction of HST through the Tri-Valley 

might be considerably reduced by the elimination of the additional tracks needed for HST express 

services. 

The Authority is pursuing a partnership with “local and regional agencies and transit providers” to 

propose and develop a joint-use (Regional Rail and HST) infrastructure project in the Altamont Pass 

corridor—as advocated in MTC’s recently approved “Regional Rail Plan for the San Francisco Bay 

Area.” Regionally provided commuter overlay services would require regional investment for 

additional infrastructure needs and potentially need operational subsidies. The Authority cannot 

unilaterally plan for regionally operated commuter services. 

”Regional Rail” in the Altamont Pass corridor will be pursued by the partnership as an independent 

project to satisfy a different purpose and need1

 from the proposed HST system, but that would also 

accommodate HST service. The Authority’s pursuit of improved regional rail service in the Altamont 

Pass corridor is dependent upon forming a partnership with the region for the joint-use 

infrastructure. After a partnership is established, the Authority will spearhead (or some combination 

of lead, collaborate, and coordinate) future environmental studies and work in partnership with other 

agencies to secure local, state, federal, and private funding to develop a joint-use infrastructure 

project in the Altamont corridor, including recommending that this corridor be added as part of the 

HST funding package. 

The Authority’s analysis suggests that Altamont HST overlay service might terminate in Oakland 

and/or San Jose via the East Bay (see Figure 8.5-1), whereas the Regional Rail Plan recommends it 

cross the Bay at Dumbarton. MTC also recommends future study of terminating this service in 

Livermore. As a part of future studies, the Authority will need to work with MTC and other agencies 

to define the appropriate alternatives to be investigated for Regional Rail/HST in the Altamont Pass to 

serve long-distance interregional commuters. The Authority is pursuing potential joint-use Altamont 

Corridor Regional Rail/HST services and identifying alternatives for further evaluation, including direct 

service to Oakland and/or San Jose or potentially terminating HST service at Livermore (connecting 

to an extended and enhanced BART system). The Authority’s objective is that the infrastructure 

would be electrified, fully grade-separated, and compatible with and shared by HST services. 

Providing connectivity and accessibility to Oakland and Oakland International Airport would be a 

crucial objective for this project. 

To lay the groundwork for a future Regional Rail/HST Altamont Pass project, the Authority will work 

with ACE, SJRRC, San Joaquin County Council of Governments, the Tri-Valley Pac, Alameda County, 

Santa Clara County, and others to get the Altamont Regional Rail/HST project identified in the update 

 

1

 As defined in CEQA and NEPA implementing regulations, procedures, and guidelines. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 8 Preferred HST Alignments

and Station Location Options 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 8-25

to the 2035 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and funds programmed in the 2035 RTP and RTIP. 

Once the Bay Area to Central Valley HST Program EIR/EIS is certified, the Authority will lead a 

Altamont Regional Rail/HST Steering Committee that will include MTC and agencies and transit 

providers along the Altamont corridor project study that will address the Altamont Pass, the East Bay 

connections, and stations in partnership, and provide the information necessary for the Authority to 

undertake an environmental study for this project. 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Page 9-1

9 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

This chapter of the Program EIR/EIS describes any potentially significant adverse environmental effects, 

identifiable at the program level of environmental review, that cannot be avoided should the proposed 

HST system or a network alternative be implemented and any unavoidable adverse impacts of the 

alternatives, as required by CEQA and NEPA, respectively. This chapter also describes any significant 

irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources or foreclosures of future options, identifiable at the 

program level of environmental review, that would be involved in the proposed HST system or network 

alternatives should one be implemented. 

This Program EIR/EIS represents the second part of the first conceptual planning stage of a tiered 

environmental evaluation that analyzes a broad range of HST Alignment Alternatives and a number of 

Network Alternatives. Most potentially significant impacts that have been described in previous chapters 

of this document can be avoided or minimized by selecting an alignment alternative that avoids or 

minimizes impacts on environmental resources through refinement to the design or specific location of 

the alignment or station, or through incorporation of mitigation measures. For example, some potentially 

significant impacts on sensitive habitat or wetlands would occur in areas where alignment alternatives are 

available that would avoid or minimize the impact, such as tunneling or designing the alignment to avoid 

the sensitive area. In addition, potential noise impacts would occur in residential areas along the 

alignment alternatives where significant noise levels could be reduced to less than significant with 

implementation of mitigation measures such as noise walls between the train track or highway and the 

residential receptors. However, there are some unavoidable potentially significant impacts that could 

occur as a result of implementation of the HST Network Alternatives under consideration. Those impacts 

are discussed below. 

9.1 Potentially Adverse Unavoidable Significant Impacts 

9.1.1 Fuel Consumption and Energy Use 

Potentially significant impacts of the No Project Alternative that cannot be mitigated or reduced to less 

than significant include consumption of an estimated 408 million barrels of oil per year under the No 

Project Alternative in 2030, over 63 million barrels of oil per year more than existing conditions.1

 The No 

Project Alternative would continue California’s dependency on automobiles and airplanes for intercity 

travel. The statewide HST system would annually consume approximately 386 million barrels of oil. The 

proposed HST system would result in a savings of about 22 million barrels of oil (a 5% difference) over 

the 2030 No Project Alternative. 

Operation of the proposed HST system would potentially increase the load on the statewide electric 

power system by an estimated 794 MW during the peak period in 2030. Overall, the HST electricity 

demand would represent about a 0.96% increase in 2030. During construction, energy consumption for 

the HST system is estimated to be approximately 128 MMBTUs, or 22 million barrels of oil. 

9.1.2 Biological Resources and Wetlands, Agricultural Land, Section 4(f) and 6(f) 

Resources, Cultural and Paleontological Resources, and Visual Resources 

The HST Network Alternatives would each commit the use of land and natural resources to a 

transportation right-of-way, even though much of the system would be constructed along existing 

transportation facilities. Some potentially significant unavoidable impacts on biological resources 

(wetlands and habitat for threatened and endangered species) might occur where the land required for 

 

1 No Project Alternative energy consumption based on June 11, 2007, forecasts provided by Cambridge Systematics. 

See Chapter 2, “Alternatives.” 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 9 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 9-2

right-of-way for the proposed HST alignment alternative contains wetlands or wildlife habitat for specialstatus species. Some potentially significant unavoidable impacts on agricultural land may occur where 

the land required for right-of-way is in agricultural use. Similarly, potential unavoidable impacts on 

Section 4(f) and 6(f), cultural, and visual (scenic landscapes) resources could occur where the HST 

alignment calls for tunnels, elevated alignments, or right-of-way adjustments. The proposed HST 

alignment would require relatively straight, flat, long linear features; moving or curving the alignment to 

avoid resources might not always be feasible and could result in impacts on other resources. Similar 

effects would occur from property acquisition and land use along the width and length of the proposed 

HST Network Alternatives. 

Only general statements of potential impacts can be made at this program level of review because 

detailed field studies were not conducted and the study areas used for some of the analysis was many 

times larger than the actual right-of-way (direct impact areas) for the network alternatives under 

consideration in most instances. Potential impacts would need to be further studied and clarified in the 

next stage of project design and environmental review, when more specific information would be 

available on the right-of-way needed for proposed HST Network Alternatives alignments and station 

location options and on the specific properties potentially affected. The objective at the project-specific 

stage of analysis would be to identify design options (plans and profiles) that would avoid these sensitive 

resources to the extent feasible. 

9.1.3 Construction Impacts 

Construction of the HST Network Alternatives would result in the irreversible commitment of resources. 

Fossil fuels, labor, and construction materials would be expended as part of construction. Further, labor 

and natural resources would be used in the fabrication and preparation of construction materials. Once 

used or expended, these materials are generally not retrievable. However, these materials are not in 

short supply and their use would not have an adverse effect on the continued availability of resources. 

Any construction of the proposed HST Network Alternatives would also require the expenditure and 

allocation of local, state, and federal funds, which are not retrievable. Once used, these funds could not 

be used for other projects. 

Short-term construction impacts related to earthwork (cut and fill and grading) that would result in dust 

(PM10 and PM2.5) and localized emissions and noise from construction equipment would occur under 

each of HST Network Alternatives. Other short-term construction impacts include impacts to already 

impaired waters. The construction of the San Francisco Bay crossings may include trench or bored 

tunnels for tubes; this type of construction is likely to disrupt Bay sediment and may disrupt any 

contaminants trapped in the sediment. These impacts would be in addition to the construction impacts 

associated with already planned projects included in the No Project Alternative. Because the construction 

period would last a number years and the length of the HST statewide system under construction at any 

one time would extend beyond just the Bay Area to Central Valley corridor, these physical impacts would 

potentially be significant. The potential impacts of this construction activity would be addressed in more 

detail during project-level analysis. This same construction activity would also have potential benefits to 

employment and to the California economy from construction jobs and contracts for the services and 

materials. The California High Speed Rail Authority’s final business plan (Business Plan) (California High 

Speed Rail Authority 2000) describes that an estimated 300,000 job-years of employment would be 

created as a result of HST system construction. 

9.2 Relationship Between Short-Term Uses of Environment and 

Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity 

Any change to the Bay Area to Central Valley transportation system of the magnitude needed to meet the 

projected intercity travel demand by the year 2030 would have short-term effects on the human and 

physical environment, but it would enhance long-term productivity and reduce risks to health and safety. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 9 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 9-3

Implementation of the proposed HST Network Alternatives would result in short-term population changes 

from relocations associated with potential property acquisitions and potential relocation of wildlife from 

habitat disturbance during construction and operation. These factors would be considered in more detail 

during project-level review. While some relocations associated with property acquisition are likely, longterm benefits would also result, including enhanced long-term productivity related to increased mobility 

and safety and the reduced travel time, air pollutant emissions, and energy use that an improved intercity 

transportation system would provide. 

Short-term benefits of any of the HST Network Alternatives include employment opportunities during 

construction (spread over a number of years) and locally purchased materials and services. 

As indicated in Chapter 1, “Purpose and Need and Objectives,” the existing and programmed 

transportation improvements in California will not keep up with the currently projected rate of future 

population growth and the increased intercity travel demand projected for California. As described in 

Chapter 5, “Economic Growth and Related Impacts,” the proposed HST system would provide user 

benefits (travel time savings, cost reductions, and accident reductions) and accessibility improvements for 

Bay Area and Central Valley citizens. The HST system would improve accessibility to labor and customer 

markets, thereby improving the competitiveness of industries and the overall local and regional economy. 

With this second effect, businesses that chose to locate in proximity to an HST station could operate 

more efficiently than businesses that locate elsewhere. The analysis shows that any of the HST Network 

Alternatives would be more efficient, compared to the No Project Alternative, in terms of the land 

consumed per new job and resident, and could provide an incremental development density that is about 

4.0% more efficient. 

9.3 California Environmental Quality Act Significance 

This section describes those environmental effects identified in Chapter 3 that would be considered 

significant under CEQA. The potential for the proposed project and alternatives to stimulate unplanned 

growth is considered in Chapter 5, “Economic Growth and Related Impacts.” Cumulative impacts are 

discussed in Section 3.17, “Cumulative Analysis.” 

Use of the term “significant” differs under NEPA and CEQA. While CEQA requires that the significance of 

impacts be discussed in an EIR, NEPA does not require such discussion in an EIS. Under NEPA, 

significance is used to determine whether an EIS or some other level of documentation is required, and 

once a decision to prepare an EIS is made, the EIS reports all impacts and discusses feasible mitigation. 

Under CEQA, significance is used to determine whether to prepare an EIR, and then to evaluate the 

severity of potential adverse environmental impacts in the EIR. The EIR must also discuss feasible 

mitigation measures that could reduce potentially significant effects. For this reason, CEQA significance 

criteria and the determination of significant impacts under CEQA have been addressed separately in this 

section. 

NEPA anticipates that mitigation will be considered where feasible for the potential impacts of a project. 

Therefore, while consideration of some mitigation strategies described in this Program EIR/EIS and in this 

section is appropriate under NEPA, the potential impacts they address may not be considered significant 

under CEQA. 

9.3.1 California Environmental Quality Act Significance Thresholds 

CEQA requires that an EIR identify the potentially significant environmental effects of the project (CEQA 

Guidelines Section 15126), but does not promulgate specific thresholds for significance. Instead, CEQA 

Guidelines Section 15064(b) states “the determination...calls for careful judgment on the part of the 

public agency involved...” and that “an ironclad definition of significant effect is not possible because the 

significance of an activity may vary with the setting.” The fundamental definition of significant effect 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 9 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 9-4

under CEQA is “a substantial adverse change in physical conditions.” This criterion underlies the 

evaluation of environmental impacts for most of the impact issues identified in the CEQA Environmental 

Checklist Form (Guidelines Appendix G). CEQA encourages lead agencies to develop and publish their 

own thresholds of significance for the purpose of determining the significant effects of their projects. 

Given the planning-level impact analysis considered in this Program EIR/EIS, the Authority has not 

developed project-specific significance thresholds. 

Some impact categories lend themselves to scientific or mathematical analysis, and therefore to 

quantification. Some categories have significance thresholds established by regulatory agencies, such as 

noise criteria or regional air pollutant criteria. For other impact categories that are more qualitative or 

are entirely dependent on the immediate setting, a hard-and-fast threshold is not generally feasible, and 

the “substantial adverse change in physical conditions” is applied as the significance criterion. In the 

current analysis, the CEQA checklist thresholds have been used to evaluate the significance of effects of 

the HST Alignment Alternatives. 

CEQA states that economic and social changes resulting from a project shall not be treated as significant 

effects on the environment (CEQA Guidelines, 15064[e]). Economic or social changes may be used, 

however, to determine that a physical change should be regarded as a significant effect on the 

environment. Where a physical change is caused by economic or social effects of a project, it may be 

regarded as a significant effect in the same manner as any other physical change resulting from the 

project. If it causes adverse economic or social effects on people, those adverse effects may be used as 

a factor in determining whether the physical change is a significant effect on the environment. Where 

the HST Network Alternatives would involve widening or expanding existing transportation rights-of-way, 

the potential for adverse environmental impacts and for potential economic or social effects is limited 

because the transportation corridor and its associated impacts are already well established. However, 

where the HST Network Alternatives would involve new transportation facilities on new rights-of-way 

(e.g., stations or alignment) or would bring large numbers of people to new station areas, there is 

greater potential for significant effect. 

9.3.2 Potentially Significant and Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 

This section identifies those environmental categories that, given their potential for impact, would be 

those most likely to experience potentially significant unavoidable adverse effects at some locations along 

the alignment alternatives being considered for the proposed HST Network Alternatives between the Bay 

Area and Central Valley. The planning level of environmental review presented in this Program EIR/EIS 

does not seek to quantify impacts as would typically be done at a project level. Instead, this Program 

EIR/EIS evaluates the potential for significant effects for the HST Network Alternatives based on the 

amount or density of resources and/or sensitive receptors within the project vicinity and ranks the 

potential for impacts as high, medium, or low. This is an appropriate assessment of potential impacts at 

this stage of such a large undertaking. The Program EIR/EIS considers HST Network Alternatives, 

identifies the lesser-impact Network Alternative, and provides a basis for identifying mitigation strategies 

that is relevant to the decisions at hand. 

Based on this planning level of analysis, potentially significant unavoidable impacts are only identified 

generally. With the scope of this project and the size and diversity of the geographic areas traversed by 

the potential HST alignment alternatives and station location options, it is likely not feasible to avoid or 

reduce all of the potentially significant impacts of the proposed HST system at every location under 

consideration through project modifications or to mitigate all these potential impacts to a less-thansignificant level. Table 9.3-1 provides a summary list of the environmental categories, general mitigation 

strategies, potentially significant impacts, and potential levels of significance after mitigation. Depending 

on the Network Alternative (discussed in Chapter 7, “High Speed Train Network and Alignment 

Alternatives Comparisons”) that may ultimately be selected, potentially significant unavoidable effects can 

be expected at some locations in the general environmental categories of agricultural lands, biological 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 9 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 9-5

resources and wetlands, hydrology and water resources, and cultural resources. However, neither the 

extent of such potential impacts nor the potential locations for such impacts can be determined at this 

level of analysis. For several of the environmental categories listed in the table below (including 

agricultural lands, wetlands, hydrology, and cultural resources), the quantities presented represent areas 

within which potential impacts might occur by including all the potentially affected resources or acreage 

in the study area for the resource topic listed. For example, the area of floodplains includes all 

floodplains within 25 ft (7.6 m) of either side of the centerline of the HST alignment where there are two 

tracks, whereas where there are four tracks and/or proposed new station facilities, the area analyzed for 

direct impacts measures 50 ft (15.2 m) of either side of the centerline or station perimeter. Therefore, 

the determination of significance is potential rather than absolute. The determination of a potentially 

significant or unavoidable impact would be used to focus attention at the next phase of planning and 

environmental review (project-specific, detailed analysis). 

9.3.3 California Environmental Quality Act Environmentally Superior Alternative 

The CEQA Guidelines state that where the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, the EIR 

shall also identify the environmentally superior alternative from among the other alternatives (CEQA Guidelines 

15126.6[e][2]). Based on the evaluations documented in Chapters 3, 7, and 8 of this Program EIR/EIS, the Pacheco 

Pass, San Francisco and San Jose Termini Network Alternative has been identified as the environmentally superior 

alternative. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 9 Un

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 9.3-1 

Summary of Key Environmental Impact/Benefits of Alternatives 

Key Environmental 

Issues 

Alternative 

Mitigation Strategy 

for HST 

Poten

No Project HST Network Alternatives 

Bef

Mitig

Traffic and Circulation Capacity is insufficient to 

accommodate projected growth. 13 of the 18 intercity highway segments considered would operate at unacceptable levels of service with increased congestion, travel delays, and accidents compared to existing conditions. Congestion would increase. 

Congestion reduction on intercity highways compared to the No Project Alternative. 15 of the 18 intercity highway segments would experience diversion of trips from vehicles to the HST system yielding improved V/C ratios. Reduce automobile travel in the state 61 billion miles annually. Localized traffic conditions around some stations would be adversely affected. 

Encourage use of transit to stations. Work with transit providers to improve station connections. 

Potentiasignifica

Travel Conditions (travel time, reliability, safety, connectivity, sustainable capacity, passenger cost) 

Longer travel times, more delay. Lower reliability due to dependence on the automobile. Increase in injuries and fatalities due to increase in highway travel. No net improvement to connectivity options. No significant increase in capacity for highway or air infrastructure, and significant worsening of congestion due to increased demand. 

Travel time reduction compared to the No Project Alternative. Greatest improvement in reliability due to high reliability of HST mode; significant levels of diversion to HST from auto and air result in reduced congestion; and additional modal option improves reliability for overall transportation system. Decrease in injuries and fatalities due to diversion of trips from highways. Highest level of connectivity. New mode would add a variety of connections to existing modes, additional frequencies, and greater flexibility. HST system would provide sufficient capacity to meet representative demand and would provide substantial additional capacity with minimal additional infrastructure. 

N/A Benefici
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 9 Un

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Key Environmental 

Issues 

Alternative 

Mitigation Strategy 

for HST 

Poten

No Project HST Network Alternatives 

Bef

Mitig

HST system would provide a release valve for the existing intercity modes. Overall savings in passenger costs of 22% to 87% on the HST compared to No Project, depending on city pair. HST passenger costs are competitive with the automobile travel and less expensive than air travel. 

Air Quality (Conformity Rule; Statewide tons of pollutants/year) 

Statewide emissions predicted to decrease in 2030 due to low emission vehicles; CO2 to 

increase statewide. Estimated CO 625,975 tons/year (79% decrease); PM10 25,185 tons/year (same as existing); PM2.5 17,155 tons/year (10% decrease); NOx 174,470 tons/year (73% decrease); TOG 92,345 tons/year (73% decrease); CO2 644 million tons/year 

(38% increase). 

Air quality benefit. Pacheco Alternative - Annual decrease in pollutants compared to No Project: CO 32,120 tons/year; PM10 1,460 tons/year, PM2.5 1,095 tons/year, NOx 7,665 tons/year; 

TOG 5,110 tons/year; CO2 8.8 

million tons/year (1.4% less than No Project). Altamont Alternative - Annual decrease in pollutants compared to No Project: CO 32,850 tons/year; PM10 1,460 tons/year, PM2.5 1,095 tons/year, NOx 7,665 tons/year; 

TOG 5,110 tons/year; CO2 5.9 

million tons/year (0.9% less than No Project). Overall reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions compared to No Project. 

Control of constructionrelated emissions. Benefici

Energy Use (Statewide) 

Energy consumption of 408 million barrels of oil annually in California in 2030; 63 million over existing conditions. 

Energy benefit. Lower statewide energy consumption compared to No Project. Operation of the statewide HST system would result in a savings of 22 million barrels (5%) 

Develop and implement energy conservation plan for construction. 

Benefici
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 9 Un

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Key Environmental 

Issues 

Alternative 

Mitigation Strategy 

for HST 

Poten

No Project HST Network Alternatives 

Bef

Mitig

of oil in 2030. Increase in electric power demand/use of natural gas. Construction-related energy consumption of the HST system would result in a one-time, nonrecoverable energy cost of about 22 million barrels of oil. 

Land Use (compatibility and property impacts) 

Expansion of urban sprawl as population grows and congestion increases; development on open space and agricultural lands. 

Controlled growth around stations, urban in-fill; compatible with transit-first policies. Majority of property acquisition along existing rights of way, some acquisition along new rights of way in undeveloped areas. Impacts to adjoining land uses (residential and industrial) at select locations prior to mitigation. Environmental Justice impacts at select locations along alignments and stations prior to mitigation. 

Continued coordination with local agencies. Explore opportunities for joint and mixed- use development at stations. Relocation assistance during future project-level review. Overall mitigation strategies for affected land uses and in EJ areas. 

Potentiasignifica

Visual Quality No predictable change to 

existing landscape. 

Low to high visual contrasts for elevated structures; low to high sensitivity in scenic open space and mountain crossings. 

Design strategies to minimize bulk and shading of bridges and elevated guideways. Use neutral colors and materials to blend with surrounding landscape features. 

Potentiasignifica

Noise More traffic and more air 

operations from growth in the intercity demand generate more noise. 

0 to 20 mi (32.4 km) or 0% to 9% of network alternative length would have high impacts on noisesensitive land use/populations. Noise increase attributable to HST frequencies. Noise reduction from existing conditions due to 

Consider sound barriers along noise-sensitive corridors; track treatment for vibration. 

Potentiasignifica
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 9 Un

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Key Environmental 

Issues 

Alternative 

Mitigation Strategy 

for HST 

Poten

No Project HST Network Alternatives 

Bef

Mitig

elimination of horn and crossing gate noise resulting from grade separation of existing grade crossings. 0 to 52 mi (84.3 km) or 0% to 25% of network alternative length would have high impacts related to vibration. (Range based on HST Network Alternatives. See Chapter 7) 

Farmland (includes area within 25 ft [7.6 m] on each side of alignment centerline [50 ft or 15.2 m total], and station footprint area) 

No predictable change from existing conditions as a result from the No Project transportation improvements. Continued loss of farmland in California at rate of 49,700 ac (20,100 ha) per year from population growth and urbanization (845,000 ac [341,960 ha] by 2020). 

Right-of-way needs of the HST could potentially impact a total of 755–1,384 ac (306–560 ha) of farmlands. HST alignments along new corridors through farmlands could have potential severance impacts. (Range based on HST Network Alternatives. See Chapter 7) 

Avoid or reduce impacts by sharing existing rail rights-of-way to the maximum extent possible and avoiding alignment options in established farmlands. Consider farmland preservation strategies. 

Potentiasignifica

Biological Resources and Wetlands (includes area within 50 ft [15 m] on each side of alignment centerline; 100 ft or 30 m total], and station footprint area) 

No predictable change from existing conditions. 

10.7 to 56.1 ac (4.3 to 22.7 ha) of wetland; 13,113 to 19,891 linear ft (3,997 to 6,063 linear m) of nonwetland waters; 38 to 71 specialstatus plant species, and 36 to 58 special-status wildlife species. (Range based on HST Network Alternatives. See Chapter 7) 

Work with resource agencies to develop sitespecific mitigation and impact avoidance strategies for project-level review in coordination with local and regional plans and policies. 

Potentiasignifica

Hydrology and Water Resources (includes area within 25 ft [7.6 m] on each side of alignment centerline for two tracks, 50 ft [15 m] on each side of centerline for four tracks and 

No predictable change from existing conditions. 

178 to 573 ac (72 to 232 ha) of floodplains; 14,400 to 30,300 linear ft. (4,389 to 9,235 m) of streams; 2 to 42 ac (0.8 to 17 ha) of lakes/San Francisco Bay; and 12 to 40 polluted 303(d) waters crossed by HST alignment. (Range based on HST Network Alternatives. See Chapter 7) 

Avoid or minimize footprint in floodplains; conduct project-level analysis of surface hydrology and coastal lagoons; BMPs for construction as part of Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. 

Potentiasignifica
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 9 Un

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Key Environmental 

Issues 

Alternative 

Mitigation Strategy 

for HST 

Poten

No Project HST Network Alternatives 

Bef

Mitig

station footprint area) Section 4(f) and 6(f) (Public Parks, Recreation, Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuges) (includes area within 900 ft [274 m] on each side of alignment centerline [1,800 ft or 549 m total]) 

No predictable change from existing conditions. 

8 to 46 Section 4(f) and 6(f) properties potentially affected. HST Network Alternatives that extend across the Bay at Dumbarton Bridge would potentially impact Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge, those that extend across Pacheco Pass would potentially impact Upper Cottonwood Creek Wildlife Area (Range based on HST Network Alternatives. See Chapter 7) 

Consider design options to avoid parkland, wildlife refuges, and wildlife areas; identify potential site-specific mitigation measures. 

Potentiasignifica

Cultural Resources (including Section 4(f) historical resources) (includes area within 500 ft [152 m] on each side of alignment centerline for new routes, 100 ft [30 m] from centerline along existing transportation facilities, and 500 ft [152 m] around station locations) 

Low ranking for impacts on archaeological resources and historic property. 

78 to 222 known archaeological and cultural resources within Area of Potential Effect. Low to high ranking for potential impacts on archaeological resources and historic properties (HST would use existing rail corridors and some stations and nearby resources developed in historic period). (Range based on HST Network Alternatives. See Chapter 7) 

Develop procedures for fieldwork, identification, evaluation, and determination of effects for cultural resources in consultation with State Historic Preservation Office and Native American Tribes. 

Potentiasignifica

Growth Potential (includes 11 county study area) 

Study area population is expected to grow by about 44%, employment is expected to increase by 37%, and urbanized areas in the study area are expected grow by 39% between 2005 and 2030. 

Compared to the No Project condition, the study area population in 2030 is expected to increase about 1.6% with the Pacheco Pass Network Alternatives to 2.2% with Altamont Pass (149,000 to 199,800), employment is expected to increase by 1.7% with Pacheco Pass to 1.8% with Altamont Pass (96,000 to 102,100 jobs), and 

Work with local communities to prepare land use plans and policies that encourage higher density development around stations. 

Potentiabenefici
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 9 Un

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Key Environmental 

Issues 

Alternative 

Mitigation Strategy 

for HST 

Poten

No Project HST Network Alternatives 

Bef

Mitig

urbanized areas are expected to increase by 0.1% with Pacheco Pass to 0.6% with Altamont Pass (9,650 ac [3,905 ha] to 14,500 ac [5,868 ha]). Highest growth rates in Madera and Merced Counties, plus Stanislaus for Altamont Pass Network Alternatives. Highest urbanization rates in Madera, Merced, and Fresno Counties, plus San Joaquin and Stanislaus for Altamont Pass Network Alternatives. HST would have similar growth inducement potential regardless of network alternative. Oakland and San Francisco termini options have similar overall growth potential, but spatial shift between East Bay and Peninsula. Service termination in San Jose would lower areawide growth inducement. HST station options have similar systemwide growth inducement potential.  Downtown HST station options have lower urbanization rates for home county. (Range based on HST Network Alternatives. See Chapter 5) 

Public Utilities No impact. Potential conflicts with 33 to 126 

identified utilities, depending on network alternative. (Range based on HST Network Alternatives.) 

Relocate, reconstruct, or restore utility; consolidate several utilities underground into one conduit during relocation. 

Potentiasignifica

Geology Potentially susceptible to 

seismic hazards. 

Potential seismic hazards and slope stability in cut sections. 

Use of ground motion data and instruments; routine maintenance of 

Potentiasignifica
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 9 Un

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Key Environmental 

Issues 

Alternative 

Mitigation Strategy 

for HST 

Poten

No Project HST Network Alternatives 

Bef

Mitig

track; slope reinforcement. 

Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) and Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) 

General EMF levels may be increased from low-level radiofrequency and infrared for radar and radar-like purposes, and from wireless data transfer and advanced technologies; not likely to cause significant changes in EMF or EMI levels. 

Various components of HST infrastructure and trains would be sources of extremely low frequency magnetic fields and radiofrequency EMFs; overall, HST would introduce additional EMF exposures or EMI at levels for which there are not established adverse impacts. 

Design features that reduce fields at the source (overhead catenary system, substations, transmission lines; some shielding with metal panels or screens). 

No signiimpact 

Hazardous Materials Disposal, clean-up, or 

remediation of exposure to hazardous materials during construction 

Estimated 0 to 18 additional hazardous materials/waste sites potentially affected by construction: Superfund (0 to 4 sites), SPL (0 to 6 sites), and SWLF (0 to 8 sites). (Range based on HST Network Alternatives.) 

Detailed Initial Site Assessment, avoid known hazardous sites where practicable, sub-surface investigation where needed to characterize sites and identify remediation. 

PotentiaSignifica

ac = acres CO = carbon monoxide CO2 = carbon dioxide 

ha = hectares m = meters MMBtus = million British thermal units N/A = not available. NOx = oxides of nitrogen 

PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns in diameter or less PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less RTPs = regional transportation plans TOG = total organic gases 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 10-1

10 PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT 

The Authority and the FRA have involved the public and other public agencies in the program 

environmental review process pursuant to the requirements of CEQA and NEPA. This chapter describes 

the public and agency involvement efforts in the preparation of this Program EIR/EIS. The public and 

agency involvement program includes the following efforts. 

• Public involvement and outreach—informational materials, including region-specific fact sheets; 

information and scoping meetings, including public and agency scoping meetings; meetings with 

individuals and groups; presentations; and briefings. 

• Agency involvement—agency scoping meetings, interagency working group, and other agency 

consultation. 

• Notification and circulation of the Draft Program EIR/EIS. 

10.1 Public Involvement and Outreach before Draft Program EIR/EIS 

Release 

10.1.1 Public Information 

A. MAILING LIST 

A mailing list database was developed and used to provide information and announcements 

concerning the preparation of the Program EIR/EIS to the public. The database was based on an 

existing Authority contact list and had more than 3,175 entries of federal, state, and local agency 

representatives; elected officials; property owners; interested persons; and interested organizations. 

The mailing list was updated for this environmental process by adding public meeting participants 

and others who asked to be added. Over the course of the project, the list grew to over 3,600 

names. This list was used to provide notification of scoping events. The mailing list does not 

represent the distribution list for the Program EIR/EIS, which is presented in Chapter 13. 

B. PUBLICATIONS AND MATERIALS 

During the scoping phase, an announcement, fact sheet, and exhibits were developed on various 

topics. The general announcement regarding scoping meetings was translated into Spanish. The 

announcement, fact sheet, and exhibits covered the following general topics: 

• Dates and agendas of scoping meetings. 

• Role and responsibilities of the Authority. 

• Project description. 

• Project purpose and need, objectives, and alternatives. 

• Preliminary alignment and station options in the study area. 

• Types of high-speed trains being considered. 

• Typical cross sections of high-speed trains. 

• Environmental review process. 

• Environmental issues and technical studies. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 10 Public and Agency Involvement 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 10-2

C. CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY WEB SITE 

During the program environmental review process, project information and announcements have 

been posted on the Authority’s web site (www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov). The Authority uses the web 

site to make public documents widely available. The site includes information on HST, the Final 

Statewide Program EIR/EIS document, the Authority’s Implementation Plan, newsletters, press 

releases, board of directors meeting information, recent developments and new information 

regarding status of the Bay Area to Central Valley HST Program environmental review process, 

information on contacting the Authority, and related links. The scoping report and the alternatives 

screening reports and public materials, in addition to other reports, have been made available on the 

web site, which is generally updated monthly. 

10.1.2 Public Meetings 

The Authority and the FRA held informal and formal public meetings during the EIR/EIS preparation 

process. Various meeting formats (e.g., open house, formal presentation, and question and comment 

session) were used to present information and provide opportunities for input by participants. Numerous 

briefings, presentations, and small group meetings were included in the process (See Chapter 11, 

“Organization, Agency, and Business Outreach before Draft Program EIR/EIS Release,” for a list of 

meetings in addition to those noted here). There were three general categories of public meetings: 

public and agency scoping meetings, Authority governing board meetings, and presentations and 

briefings to interested groups. 

A. PUBLIC AND AGENCY SCOPING MEETINGS 

The scoping activities for the Bay Area to Central Valley HST Draft Program EIR/EIS were conducted 

between November 15 and December 16, 2005 (scoping period). The public workshops/scoping 

meetings drew more than 500 participants. The geographical extent and complexity of the proposed 

project led to scoping meetings being held in multiple locations from the Bay Area to the Central 

Valley. 

The scoping process included six officially noticed agency and public scoping meetings (Table 

10.1-1). At each location, two sessions were held, the first from 3:00 to 5:00 p.m. and the second 

from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. Each session consisted of an open house followed by a presentation. Given 

the important relationship of HST alignments and stations to a regional rail system in the northern 

California area, the Bay Area to Central Valley HST Program EIR/EIS scoping meetings were held in 

conjunction with public meetings on the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Rail Plan initiation 

meetings. 

Exhibits and handouts used during scoping meetings were distributed at the meetings and through 

the Authority’s web site. These materials included: 

• NOP and NOI. 

• Scoping meeting announcement postcard. 

• Bay Area to Central Valley HST fact sheet. 

• Scoping meeting presentation. 

• Exhibit posters. 

• Scoping period comment card. 

At each meeting, attendees were asked to sign in and provide contact information so that updates 

and future notices could be sent to them. Authority and regional rail staff facilitated the scoping 

meeting to provide general information and instruction on how to provide public comment. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 10 Public and Agency Involvement 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 10-3

Table 10.1-1 

Scoping Meeting Locations and Times 

Date City Location/Address Time of Public Agency & 

General Public Meetings 

11/29/05 Oakland Joseph P. Bort Metro Center, Larry D. Dahms 

Auditorium, 101 Eighth Street, Oakland 

3:00–5:00 p.m. 

6:00–8:00 p.m. 

11/30/05 San Jose New San Jose City Hall—Council Wing, Community Room 

W120, 200 East Santa Clara Street, San Jose 

3:00–5:00 p.m. 

6:00–8:00 p.m. 

12/1/05 San 

Francisco 

San Francisco Civic Center Complex, Hiram Johnson 

Building, Auditorium, 455 Golden Gate Avenue, San 

Francisco 

3:00–5:00 p.m. 

6:00–8:00 p.m. 

12/5/05 Livermore Livermore Public Library, Community Room A + B, 1188 

S. Livermore Avenue, Livermore 

3:00–5:00 p.m. 

6:00–8:00 p.m. 

12/6/05 Modesto Doubletree Hotel, Ballrooms 1, 2, and 3, 1150 Ninth 

Street, Modesto 

3:00–5:00 p.m. 

6:00–8:00 p.m. 

12/8/05 Suisun City Suisun City Hall, Council Chambers, 701 Civic Center 

Boulevard, Suisun City 

3:00–5:00 p.m. 

6:00–8:00 p.m. 

Each meeting began with a 1-hour open house during which HST and regional rail staff were present 

to answer questions and discuss materials being handed out or displayed around the room. 

Following the open house, PowerPoint presentations were made regarding the overall regional rail 

plan (presented by regional rail staff) and the HST scoping process (presented by Authority staff). 

The public was then encouraged to ask for clarification regarding either of the presentations. The 

remainder of the meeting was dedicated to answering questions from the attendees. Written and 

verbal comments from these meetings, as well as scoping materials, are included and summarized in 

the Bay Area-to-Central Valley Scoping Report (Authority and FRA 2006). 

In addition to the formal scoping meetings, other presentations, briefings, and meetings were held 

during the scoping process. Meetings were attended primarily by public agencies and other 

representative local organizations. Notification of the meetings was provided by telephone and/or 

email to local/regional agency and organization representatives. Chapter 11, “Organization, Agency, 

and Business Outreach before Draft Program EIR/EIS Release,” includes a list of the additional 

meetings held as part of the Authority’s outreach effort, both during and subsequent to scoping. 

B. CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY BOARD MEETINGS 

The Authority governing board typically holds monthly meetings. Board meetings usually are held in 

Sacramento but were also held in the Bay Area to help encourage greater participation from agencies 

and the general public in the Bay Area. The board meetings during the program environmental 

review process regularly included status reports on the preparation of the Program EIR/EIS and 

provided opportunities for public comment. Authority board meetings are announced by posting on 

the Authority’s web site and by mailing to approximately 1,600 persons and organizations. Minutes 

from board meetings are also posted on the web site. The places and dates of the Authority’s board 

meetings are listed below. 

• Sacramento—November 1 and 2, 2005. 

• San Jose—January 25, 2006. 

• Oakland—March 22, 2006. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 10 Public and Agency Involvement 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 10-4

• Sacramento—August 9, 2006. 

• Sacramento—September 27, 2006. 

• Sacramento—October 25, 2006. 

• Sacramento—November 8, 2006. 

• Sacramento—December 13, 2006. 

• Sacramento—January 29, 2007. 

• Sacramento—March 2, 2007. 

• Sacramento—April 18, 2007. 

• Sacramento—May 23, 2007. 

• San Carlos—June 27, 2007. 

• Sacramento—September 26, 2007. 

• Sacramento—November 14, 2007. 

• Sacramento—December 19, 2007. 

• Sacramento—February 6, 2008. 

• Sacramento—April 2, 2008. 

• Anaheim—May 14, 2008. 

C. PRESENTATIONS, BRIEFINGS, AND OUTREACH 

During the program environmental review process, presentations to conferences, forums, local and 

regional government agencies, interest groups and organizations, and agency meetings and other 

briefings have been given to provide general information concerning the proposed HST system and 

the program environmental review process. Interest groups included nongovernmental organizations 

(e.g., RailPac), community planning organizations (e.g., Transportation Land Use Coalition [TALC]), 

and public interest discussion/research groups (e.g., WTS Seminar). The state, regional, and local 

groups that participated in this aspect of the Authority and FRA outreach effort are listed in 

Chapter 11, “Organization, Agency, and Business Outreach before Draft Program EIR/EIS Release.” 

10.1.3 Notification of Scoping Meetings 

A California state NOP was distributed to the State Clearinghouse; elected officials; local, regional, and 

state agencies; and interested members of the public on November 14, 2005. An NOI was published in 

the Federal Register on November 28, 2005. The NOP and NOI presented the purpose of the project, the 

project limits, a description of alternatives to be considered, the need for agency input, potential 

environmental impacts of the project, the contact name for additional information regarding the project, 

and the dates and locations of the scoping meetings. 

The Authority held scoping meetings in conjunction with San Francisco Bay Area Regional Rail Plan public 

meetings. Various federal, state, and local agencies; elected officials; community, business, and 

environmental leaders and organizations; and other interested individuals received notification of the first 

phase of public workshops/scoping meetings. The notification activities included legal notices, direct 

mail, web postings, media advisories, email blasts, and flyers, as described below. Several methods were 

used to notify the public of the scoping process. 

• Notification of the scoping meetings was published in nine local newspapers on November 15, 2005. 

These newspapers were the Modesto Bee, Merced Sun Star, Fresno Bee, Stockton Record, 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 10 Public and Agency Involvement 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 10-5

Sacramento Bee, Daily Republic, Oakland Tribune, San Francisco Examiner, and San Jose Mercury 

News. 

• An announcement postcard was distributed to approximately 3,175 individuals, agencies, 

organizations, and businesses on a mailing list derived from prior work and current project outreach. 

More than 1,500 addresses of public agencies, organizations, and individuals were extracted from the 

MTC contact database. The postcard provided a brief description of the project and the purpose of 

scoping, times and locations of scoping meetings, contacts for additional information, and contacts 

for additional information in Spanish. 

• MTC mailed workshop flyers to its Bay Area Partnership Technical Advisory Committee, which 

includes representatives from Caltrans, county congestion management agencies, and local transit 

operators, for discussion at its meeting on October 24, 2005. 

• The San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG) mailed workshop flyers to 89 addresses 

representing its standing committee members (Citizen’s Advisory Committee, Social Services 

Transportation Advisory Committee, Technical Advisory Committee, Manager’s and Finance 

Committee, and Transit Operator’s Working Group) on November 16, 2005. 

• Information about the workshops/scoping meetings was posted on MTC’s web site: www.mtc.ca.gov; 

the Authority’s web site: www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov; the FRA’s web site: www.fra.dot.gov; and the 

Regional Rail Plan public web site: www.bayarearailplan.info. Also, Caltrain’s web site 

(www.caltrain.com) provided a link to the Regional Rail Plan public web site. 

• Media advisories/press releases were issued by MTC, including a November 17, 2005, media 

advisory, a November 30, 2005, press release following the first workshop/scoping meeting in 

Oakland, and a December 1, 2005, press release prior to the Modesto workshop/scoping meeting. 

MTC also responded to all press calls on the Regional Rail Plan. 

• MTC sent an email blast to the Regional Rail Steering Committee on October 25, 2005. 

• MTC sent an email blast to 5,200 email addresses extracted from MTC’s contact database of public 

agencies, organizations, and individuals on November 1, 2005. 

• Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) distributed workshop flyers through a seat drop to more than 

1,350 of its morning commuters on November 10, 2005. 

• SJCOG sent an email blast to 4,617 email addresses compiled as part of its I-205 Campaign on 

November 21, 2005. 

• Some 50,000 copies of a special BART Bulletin were distributed at all 34 BART station fare gates 

starting on November 29, 2005. 

• Caltrain distributed 6,000 workshop flyers through a seat drop and issued a press release announcing 

the upcoming San Jose, San Francisco, and San Carlos workshops on November 30, 2005. 

• Stanislaus Council of Governments (StanCOG) sent an email blast to email addresses representing its 

policy board and standing committees. 

10.2 Agency Consultation before Draft Program EIR/EIS Release 

10.2.1 Agency Scoping 

In addition to the scoping meetings, informal roundtable/workshop meetings were conducted with many 

public agencies. Many of the agency contacts made during the scoping process led to subsequent oneon-one and small group agency consultation meetings during the preparation of the Program EIR/EIS. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 10 Public and Agency Involvement 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 10-6

10.2.2 Interagency Consultation 

The Authority and the FRA convened staff representatives from 27 interested federal and state agencies 

to provide input on the environmental review process. The EPA and the USACE were designated 

cooperating agencies under NEPA for the preparation of the Program EIR/EIS, as reflected in an MOU 

among these agencies and the FRA. In addition to the scoping meetings, two agency consultation 

meetings were held on April 19, 2006. The federal cooperating agencies and the lead agencies had 

frequent communications throughout this program environmental process. 

10.2.3 Other Agency Consultation 

In addition to the scoping process and interagency staff meetings, agency consultation has taken place at 

the regional level. Chapter 11, “Organization, Agency, and Business Outreach before Draft Program 

EIR/EIS Release,” lists these additional briefings. The Authority is a partner in the management of the SF 

Bay Area Regional Rail Plan, and Authority staff have participated as part of the Regional Rail Program 

Management Team (with MTC, Caltrain, and BART) throughout that planning effort—ensuring continuity 

between the Regional Rail Plan and the Bay Area to Central Valley HST Program EIR/EIS. 

The FRA and the Authority also initiated consultation with the Native American Heritage Commission as 

part of the Statewide Program EIR/EIS. A search of their Sacred Lands file and lists of Native American 

contacts was conducted as part of the Statewide Program EIR/EIS. The Authority has contacted tribal 

representatives as part of this Program EIR/EIS. 

10.3 Scoping Summary 

The scoping process helped the lead agencies identify general environmental issues to be addressed in 

this Program EIR/EIS. The public and agency comments identified support for and interest in the 

proposed HST system in the study area and indicated the need for the proposed system to be connected 

to existing transportation systems. Much of the public comment focused on preferences for or against 

potential HST alignment alternatives. Providing potential freight service was also frequently mentioned. 

Concerns regarding environmental issues typically focused on potential noise and visual impacts, safety 

issues, potential impacts on air quality and sensitive habitats, and the potential for growth inducement. 

In the East Bay and Peninsula corridors, comments suggested the need to consider improving existing 

passenger rail services in existing corridors with compatible/consistent technologies versus adding new 

dedicated rights-of-way and services. Support was expressed for station locations at the proposed new 

Transbay Transit Center in San Francisco, at Diridon Station in downtown San Jose, in downtown 

Oakland, and in Livermore and Union City. The comments identified the need for the project to be 

sensitive to such environmental issues as noise, visual impacts, safety, impacts on wildlife refuges, and 

effects of induced growth. Concerns were raised regarding train speeds in urban areas. 

Several overall themes related to HST arose at public meetings, as follows: 

• Views on and preferences for Southern Alignments vs. Altamont Pass Alignments are divergent and 

strong. 

• A Diablo Range “Direct” Alignment is not a viable option because it would present severe 

environmental impacts. 

• Grasslands Ecological Area (GEA) is a critical environmental resource. 

• The EIR/EIS should expand evaluation of biological impacts. 

• HST should be used to upgrade commuter rail services. 

• Interest, concerns, and requirements regarding new San Francisco Bay Crossing. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 10 Public and Agency Involvement 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 10-7

• HST system must be safe and secure. 

• HST system connectivity and convenience are key. 

• Should have TOD around stations. 

• There is support for an HST system linking California's major metropolitan areas. 

• Support for the Transbay Transit Center as the Downtown San Francisco HST terminus. 

• Concerns relating to the potential for the HST Alignment Alternatives to induce growth. 

• Questions about how the Program EIR/EIS address potential mitigation measures. 

10.4 Notification and Circulation of the Draft Program EIR/EIS 

Notice regarding the availability and the circulation of the Draft Program EIR/EIS were provided pursuant 

to CEQA and NEPA requirements. The Draft Program EIR/EIS was released for public review and 

comment on July 16, 2007, and noticed in the Federal Register on July 20, 2007. The initial public 

comment period was scheduled to end September 28, 2007, but due to public requests, it was extended 

to October 26, 2007. All comments submitted to the Authority during this review period have been 

addressed and responded to as part of this Final Program EIR/EIS. 

Notification packets announcing the availability of the Draft Program EIR/EIS were mailed on July 13, 

2007, to federal cooperating agencies, other affected agencies, and elected officials. The federal 

cooperating agencies and other selected agencies received an announcement letter from the Authority, a 

hard copy of the Draft Program EIR/EIS, and a CD copy of the document with appendices. Sixty-six 

other affected public agencies received an announcement letter from the Authority, an Executive 

Summary, and a CD copy of the document with appendices. Sixty Native American tribal representatives 

received an announcement letter from the Authority, an Executive Summary, and a CD copy of the 

document with appendices. Eighty-two elected officials received an announcement letter from the 

Authority and an Executive Summary. A distribution list for the Draft Program EIR/EIS was included in 

the Draft Program EIR/EIS. 

The general public was informed of the Draft Program EIR/EIS release through distribution of an 

announcement of the document’s availability to the project mailing list. The announcement also provided 

the details for submitting comments by mail or fax and announced dates, times, and locations of public 

hearings. The mailing list contains approximately 3,600 statewide contacts, including federal, state, and 

local elected officials; federal, state, and local agency representatives; chambers of commerce; 

environmental and transportation organizations; special interest groups; media; private entities; and 

members of the public. The mailing list was based on the database developed as part of the statewide 

Program EIR/EIS and the MTC contact database. The mailing list is on file with the Authority and is 

available for viewing. 

The Program EIR/EIS was also made available for viewing and downloading at the Authority’s web site, 

www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov. Comments were accepted directly from the website as well. The website 

also provided the opportunity to request a CD ROM or printed copies of the document. 

The announcement and web site listed the libraries with a hard copy of the document available for 

review. Participating libraries are located in the following cities: Fremont, Gilroy, Merced, Modesto, 

Mountain View, Oakland, Pleasanton, Palo Alto, Sacramento, San Francisco, San Jose, and Stockton. 

The release of the Draft Program EIR/EIS was announced through display ads distributed in the following 

newspapers: Sacramento Bee, Daily Republic, Oakland Tribune, San Francisco Examiner, San Jose 

Mercury News, Modesto Bee, Merced Sun Star, Fresno Bee, and Stockton Record. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 10 Public and Agency Involvement 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 10-8

10.4.1 Public Hearings 

The Authority held a total of eight public hearings to present the Draft Program EIR/EIS and to receive 

public comments. Originally, six public hearings were scheduled, but due to requests, two more public 

hearings were planned. A court reporter was present at each of the public hearings to record oral 

comments. At each public hearing, oral comments could be made during the “public testimony” portion 

of the meeting or during the open house portion of the meeting to the court reporter at the “public 

comments” table. Oral comments on the Draft EIR/EIS were only accepted during the eight public 

hearings. 

Requests were made to extend the comment period, and the Authority Board, in consultation with the 

FRA, extended the comment period at the September 28, 2007, board meeting to October 26, 2007. A 

notice postcard regarding the comment period extension to October 26, 2007, was distributed to the 

project mailing list on October 3, 2007 (list is described in 10.1.1 above). In addition, the FRA published 

a notice of the extension in the Federal Register. 

The public was notified of the first six public hearings through a notice postcard that provided the public 

hearing locations and schedule. The notice postcard was mailed on July 18, 2007, to the project mailing 

list (list is described in Section 10.1.1). The two additional public hearings were announced through 

notice announcements mailed on September 5, 2007, and September 18, 2007, to the project mailing list. 

The public hearings were also announced through a display ad published in nine newspapers within the 

region. The display ad for the first six public hearings was published on Friday, July 20, 2007. The 

Stockton public hearing ad was published on Tuesday, September 4, 2007, and the ad for the 

Sacramento public hearing was published on Wednesday, September 19, 2007. The Stockton public 

hearing ad was published in the Modesto Bee, Tracy Press, and Stockton Record, and the Sacramento 

public hearing ad was published in the Sacramento Bee. 

In addition to the public hearings held during the comment period, Authority staff and the FRA notified 

over 50 Native American tribal organizations and held a meeting on August 24, 2007, to discuss the Draft 

Program EIR/EIS and to solicit input. 

A. INITIAL SIX PUBLIC HEARINGS 

Each of the six initial public hearings started at 4:00 PM and ended at 6:00 PM. From 4:00 to 4:15 

PM there was an informational open house with exhibit boards available for viewing and project staff 

present to answer questions and discuss issues. Formal public testimony began at 4:15 PM. 

Authority Board members facilitated the public testimony. Other Board Members, Authority staff, and 

an FRA Representative (at selected meetings only) were present to listen to comments. The open 

house resumed once all public testimony was received. 

The public hearings were scheduled as follows: 

• San Francisco—Thursday, August 23, 2007 

• San Jose—Friday, August 24, 2007 

• Livermore—Monday, August 27, 2007 

• Oakland—Tuesday, August 28, 2007 

• Gilroy—Wednesday, August 29, 2007 

• Merced—Thursday, August 30, 2007
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 10 Public and Agency Involvement 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 10-9

B. ADDITIONAL TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS 

The two additional public hearings were held from 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM following the same format of 

the previous meetings and included an open house and public testimony with Board Members and 

Authority staff present to listen to comments. 

The two additional public hearings were scheduled as follows: 

• Stockton—Tuesday, September 18, 2007 

• Sacramento—Wednesday, September 26, 2007 

At each public hearing, speaker cards were available for public testimony. Individuals who wished to 

testify submitted a speaker card and were then called in turn by the facilitator. Individual comments 

were not time limited and allowed sufficient time for people to comment. A court reporter was 

present and recorded all the oral comments. Individuals were also able to make oral comments 

directly to the court reporter once the public testimony session had ended. Comment sheets were 

available for submitting written comments. 

C. PUBLIC HEARING OVERVIEW 

In all, over 354 members of the public attended the public hearings. 

San Francisco—Thursday, August 23, 2007, 4:00–6:00 PM 

• Location: San Francisco City Hall, Board Chambers, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place 

• Individuals Signed In: 42 

San Jose—Friday, August 24, 2007, 4:00–6:00 PM 

• Location: San Jose City Hall, City Council Chambers, 200 East Santa Clara Street 

• Individuals Signed In: 63 

Livermore—Monday, August 27, 2007, 4:00–6:00 PM 

• Location: Livermore City Council Chambers, 3575 Pacific Avenue 

• Individuals Signed In: 23 

Oakland—Tuesday, August 27, 2007, 4:00–6:00 PM 

• Location: Oakland City Hall, City Council Chambers, 1 Frank Ogawa Plaza, 2nd Floor 

• Individuals Signed In: 30 

Gilroy—Wednesday, August 29, 2007, 4:00–6:00 PM 

• Location: Gilroy City Hall, City Council Chambers, 7351 Rosanna Street 

• Individuals Signed In: 28 

Merced—Thursday, August 30, 2007, 4:00–6:00 PM 

• Location: Merced County Administration Building, Board Chambers, 2222 M Street, 3rd Floor 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 10 Public and Agency Involvement 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 10-10

• Individuals Signed In: 84 

Stockton—Tuesday, September 18, 2007, 4:00–6:00 PM 

• Location: San Joaquin Council of Governments Regional Center Board Room, 555 E. Weber 

Avenue 

• Individuals Signed In: 53 

Sacramento—Wednesday, September 26, 2007, 4:00–6:00 PM 

• Location: State Capitol, Room 112, 10th Street and Capitol Mall 

• Individuals Signed In: 61 (includes those attending regular Board Meeting) 

10.4.2 Summary of Comments 

In addition to comments received through the public hearings, written comments on the Draft Program 

EIR/EIS were sent to the Authority in the form of letters and faxes, and were also sent through the 

Authority's website. Table 10.4-1 lists the number of those providing comments during the public 

comment period including those from the public hearings. Some of the letters received listed multiple 

agencies. In addition, a number of individuals and organizations also orally commented at the public 

hearings and/or commented both in hardcopy and electronically (through the website). More than 400 

people provided over 1,300 comments from July 20, 2007, to October 26, 2007, during the circulation 

period (either through written letters or oral comments). 

Table 10.4-1 

Comment Submittals on the Draft Program EIR/EIS 

Method of 

Comment 

Submission 

Federal State Local 

Elected Agency Elected Agency Elected Agency Organization Individual Total

Public Hearings 

Oral Testimony 4 0 1 3 21 30 47 57 163 

Written 2 0 1 2 3 6 1 12 27 

Letters/Faxes 1 8 4 6 12 24 17 35 107 

Web 1 5 15 83 104 

Total 15 18 101 80 187 401 

Through the public hearings, 163 people provided oral testimony and 27 provided written comments. 

There were 106 written letters and faxes received (1 from federal elected officials1

, 8 from federal 

agencies, 4 from state elected officials2

, 6 from state agencies, 11 from local elected officials, 21 from 

local agencies3

, 22 from organizations4, and 34 from individuals), and 104 people provided comments on 

the Authority’s website (1 from a state agency, 5 from local agencies, 15 from organizations, and 83 from 

individuals). 

 

1

 1 letter signed by 5 federal elected officials of the U.S. Congress. 

2

 1 letter signed by 4 state elected officials of the California Legislature. 

3

 1 letter signed by 3 local agencies. 

4

 1 letter representing comments of 10 organizations/agencies. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 10 Public and Agency Involvement 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 10-11

A. OVERVIEW OF COMMENTS RECEIVED 

The brief summary below provides an overview of written letters, comments received through the 

Authority's website, and oral testimony received at the public hearings during the comment period. 

The responses to the comments received on the Draft Program EIR/EIS are included in Volume 3 of 

the Final Program EIR/EIS. 

In general, the comments fell into two categories: HST program and environmental issues. Many of 

the comments supported the HST program; however, disapproval of certain alternative routes was 

also expressed. Most of the comments either favored one HST alternative (alignments and/or station 

locations) over another or favored combined alternatives. Concerns were raised about potential 

environmental impacts from the construction and operation of HST service. Many comments about 

environmental impacts dealt with alternative HST alignments, but some of the commenters also were 

concerned with the potential for the HST system to induce growth. Some comments were raised 

regarding the adequacy and detail of the Program EIR/EIS. A few requested for an extension to the 

comment period and for additional public meetings to be held (Note: the comment period was 

extended and two additional public hearings were provided). A few also indicated that it was 

essential for the bond measure to remain on the ballot in 2008. The following bullets summarize 

some of the comments received:

• Support for a HST system linking California's major metropolitan areas. 

• Support and opposition for specific alignment options between the Bay Area and Central Valley. 

• Opposition to HST alignment through the GEA. 

• Opposition to HST alignments through the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife 

Refuge. 

• Support for Castle Air Force Base as the HST station location and maintenance facility. 

• Support for the Transbay Transit Center as the Downtown San Francisco HST terminus. 

• Interest in station location, design, and potential for joint development. 

• Concern that the project crossed Tribes Ancestral Territory. 

As noted above, those providing input focused their comments on the two general categories of the 

HST program or environmental issues, as summarized below. 

High-Speed Train Program

The vast majority of commenters strongly supported the HST program; many expressed urgency in 

getting the project built as soon as possible. Many considered the HST program to represent an 

opportunity for California to: 

• Demonstrate leadership on a national level. 

• Begin to address the global climate change issue. 

• Provide desperately needed congestion relief. 

• Provide much needed alternatives to travel by both the automobile and airplanes. 

• Serve population centers and provide an alternative to air travel between the Bay Area and Los 

Angeles. 

• Provide solutions for combating air quality issues. 

• Provide an economic benefit to California generally and Silicon Valley and the Central Valley. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 10 Public and Agency Involvement 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 10-12

• Provide complementary transportation service to other existing transit systems, as well as agency 

regional transit system plans. 

Some of those providing comments questioned the necessity for the project or whether it was an 

effective project, indicating that building additional lanes on the freeways, especially those that would 

allow for high speed automobile travel, was a better alternative. A commenter indicated that an 

alternative that would upgrade rail corridors to 125 miles per hour travel speed would be a sufficient 

and more effective means of providing congestion relief. It was also expressed that the HST system 

needs to serve the San Francisco International Airport and San Jose International Airport. 

Many commenters indicated that if a high speed train system was going to be built, it needed to 

focus on what they perceived to be the overall objective: to provide a fast downtown to downtown 

alternative from San Francisco to Los Angeles. 

Some expressed concern that the program would be partially built and then lose funding, and never 

be fully completed. A few commenters also addressed the need for the federal government to fund 

the rail program, with some indicating that they believed a national high-speed rail program was 

essential. 

Route Preference 

In general, a large portion of the comments received addressed which route should be selected, with 

some commenters discussing specific station locations, connections to BART and Caltrain, and 

preferred locations for the storage/maintenance facilities. Many commenters expressed a preference 

for either the Pacheco Pass or Altamont Pass routes with some wanting both routes to connect the 

Bay Area to the Central Valley and suggesting close coordination between this project and the MTC 

San Francisco Bay Regional Rail Plan. 

The reasons given for supporting the Pacheco Pass route included that it: 

• Provides quicker travel times between San Jose/Silicon Valley and Southern California. 

• Provides more frequent/better service between Bay Area and southern California. 

• Provides higher ridership potential. 

• Results in fewer potential environmental impacts. 

• Avoids impacts on wildlife and sensitive habitat through Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National 

Wildlife Refuge. 

• Best serves the Caltrain Corridor (San Francisco to Gilroy). 

• Provides good HST access for the three county Monterey Bay area with a south Santa Clara HST 

station. 

• Can serve San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose without a new crossing of the Bay. 

• Provides service through San Jose and best serves south Bay. 

• Is less costly for first phase of system between the Bay Area and Anaheim. 

In addition, commenters indicated that if the Pacheco Pass route were selected, BART could be 

extended to serve communities along the Altamont Pass corridor and that the ACE trains already 

serve those areas; thus, the Altamont Pass route would be a redundant service. Some expressed 

concern about the redundancy of service along the Caltrain corridor and that the shared use would 

present conflicts with scheduling and use of stations. 

The reasons given for supporting the Altamont Pass route included that it: 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 10 Public and Agency Involvement 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 10-13

• Provides quicker travel times between Sacramento/Northern San Joaquin Valley and the Bay 

Area. 

• Best serves the Central Valley. 

• Serves more Northern San Joaquin markets on the Authority’s adopted first phase of construction 

between the Bay Area and Anaheim. 

• Provides higher ridership potential. 

• Has less potential for environmental impacts. 

• Avoids impacts on wildlife and sensitive habitat through Pacheco Pass and the GEA. 

• Serves a greater population/more population along the alignment. 

• Best serves ACE corridor and reduces traffic along I-580. 

• Has better service between the Bay Area and Southern California (either reduced frequency is 

needed on shared Caltrain alignment or HST service can be split). 

• Best serves San Jose since it would be a terminus station and with much faster travel times to 

commuter markets in the Northern San Joaquin Valley. 

• Is less sprawl inducing. 

A few commenters indicated that both routes should be built because both areas equally need the 

HST system. Some indicated that the Pacheco Pass route could operate as an express route and the 

Altamont route could operate as more of a regional route. It was also noted that with either 

alignment, design refinements would be important to reduce overall impacts. 

Environmental Issues 

The comment letters contained concerns about environmental issues. Some comments were specific: 

addressing the adequacy of the Draft Program EIR/EIS, the type of modeling for some aspects of the 

study, the depth of the analyses for some subjects, etc.; however, most were not addressing the 

Draft Program EIR/EIS but were speaking to overall environmental concerns. A number of comments 

were related to biology (Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge, GEA, wildlife 

movement corridors, and sensitive habitats). Comments generally related to the following topics: 

• Biology 

• Floodplains 

• Travel times 

• Ridership 

• Traffic and parking 

• Air quality 

• Noise and vibration 

• Visual quality 

• Farmland 

• Geologic and soil constraints 

• Land use 

• Utilities 

• Hydrology 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 10 Public and Agency Involvement 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 10-14

• Growth inducement and cumulative impacts 

• Operating and capital costs 

The more specific concerns included: 

• HST likely to adversely affect federally listed plants/animals. 

• EIR/EIS makes no provisions for future of federally listed species and no assurances of total 

avoidance. 

• Impacts to the GEA and Grasslands Important Bird Area. 

• Growth inducing impacts of the HST system. 

• Concern that the HST program does not equitably serve all populations and low- and moderateincome groups are under served. 

• Encroachment onto Department of Water Resources land, which would trigger their involvement 

as a Responsible Party and need for permits. 

• Need to allocate sufficient funding for mitigation measures. 

• Impacts to wildlife movement. 

• Concern that impacts to parks, trails, and historic/cultural resources were not fully evaluated. 

• Noise and vibration impacts on wildlife. 

• Impacts to San Francisco Bay and the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge. 

• Concern about addition of two tracks that would impact adjacent planned development. 

• Stand alone mitigation program needs to be developed and carried forward to ensure 

implementation. 

• Concern about cumulative impacts. 

• Concern about habitat fragmentation if both Pacheco Pass and Altamont Pass options were 

implemented. 

Some commenters indicated that alternatives should be evaluated that avoided or minimized impacts. 

Some indicated that the Draft Program EIR/EIS deferred analysis and that mitigation measures 

provided are vague and unenforceable. Some also indicated that the growth of Silicon Valley was not 

adequately addressed. 

10.4.3 Responses to Comments Received and the Final Program EIR/EIS 

As part of this Final Program EIR/EIS, the Authority and FRA have responded to comments received, 

which are included in and have informed the preparation of this Final Program EIR/EIS. The members of 

the Authority Board will consider the comments and input received on the Draft Program EIR/EIS and the 

responses prior to certifying the Final Program EIR. Once the Authority Board has certified the Final 

Program EIR, it may approve the project and issue a CEQA Findings of Fact and a Statement of 

Overriding Considerations and file a Notice of Determination with the State Clearinghouse in the 

Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. 

The FRA is the agency responsible for authorizing federal involvement for the project and is the NEPA 

lead agency for the Final Program EIS. The EPA and the USACE are federal cooperating agencies under 

NEPA. FRA will consider all comments and responses in the preparation of the Final Program EIS and the 

issuance of a NEPA Record of Decision. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 10 Public and Agency Involvement 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 10-15

10.4.4 Additional Agency Consultation and Outreach Activities 

The FRA and Authority staff have consulted with representatives of federal, state, and local agencies as 

well as various groups and organizations in preparation of this Final Program EIR/EIS. 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 11-1

11 ORGANIZATION, AGENCY, AND BUSINESS OUTREACH 

BEFORE DRAFT PROGRAM EIR/EIS RELEASE 

Organization Contact Date Topic 

Alameda County Supervisor Scott Haggerty 

Dawn Argula 

March 9, 2006 Program update 

Alameda County 

Congestion 

Management Agency 

Dennis Faye April 12, 2006 Program update 

Altamont Commuter Rail 

Service 

Stacey Mortensen April 27, 2006 Program update 

American Public 

Transportation 

Association 

Rod Diridon October 11, 2006 Presentation at Annual 

Conference in San Jose 

Amtrak Liz O’Donahue Frequent communication Program updates 

ARUP Michael Kaye 

John Eddy 

Frequent communication Program updates 

BART (San Francisco 

Bay Area Rapid Transit 

District) 

Marianne Payne Frequent communication Program updates, alignment 

options 

Marianne Payne July 6, 2006 Presentation to BART Managers, 

program update 

BayRail Alliance Margaret Okuzumi Frequent communication Program updates, issues on 

alignment and station options 

CA Department of Parks 

and Recreation 

Heidi West February 23, 2006 

March 6, 2006 

Frequent Communication 

Program update, alignment 

options 

CA Department of Parks 

and Recreation, Diablo 

Vista District 

Don Monahan April 4, 2006 

Frequent Communication 

Program update, alignment 

options 

CA Department of 

Transportation 

(Caltrans) 

Rick Deming April 19, 2006 Program update 

Lea Simpson, Division of 

Rail 

Frequent communication Program updates, technical 

studies details 

CA Public Utilities 

Commission 

Ernie Von Ibseh April 19, 2006 Agency coordination meeting 

CA Transportation 

Commission 

Robert Chung Frequent communication Program updates 

Caltrain JPA Art Lloyd Frequent communication Program updates, Caltrain 

corridor 

Capitol Corridor Joint 

Powers Authority 

David Kutrosky 

Eugene Skoropowski 

Frequent communication Program updates, East Bay 

station/alignment issues 

Jim Allison June 30, 2006 Program update, conceptual 

engineering 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 11 Organization, Agency, and Business Outreach 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 11-2

Organization Contact Date Topic 

Defenders of Wildlife Cynthia Wilkerson October 3, 2005 Program update 

November 8, 2006 Program update 

DE Consult Gerd Morhenn 

Wolfgang Henn 

Frequent communication Technical standards, 

methodologies, and analysis 

Dublin (City of) Mayor Janet Lockhart 

Richard Ambrose 

March 9, 2006 Program update 

Mayor Janet Lockhart 

Melissa Martin 

June 30, 2006 Program update, conceptual 

engineering 

Earthtech Karl Schaarschimdt Frequent communication Program updates, alignments 

and station locations, 

engineering and operations 

assumptions 

East Bay Regional Parks Brad Olson Frequent communication Program updates 

Brad Olson April 19, 2006 Agency coordination meeting 

Fremont (City of) Jim Pierson June 20, 2006 Program update, conceptual 

engineering 

Grasslands Water 

District/Grasslands 

Resource Con. Dist. 

Tom Enslow Frequent communication Program updates 

 Tom Enslow November 16, 2005 

February 23, 2006 

Program updates 

Richard Wright April 19, 2006 Agency coordination meeting 

Great Valley Center Carol Whiteside Frequent communication Program updates, outreach to 

Central Valley 

Hatch Mott MacDonald Lee Warnock Frequent communication Program updates 

Japanese Delegation Ikuo Fujita 

Representatives from 

Central Japan Railways, 

Hitachi, JARTS, JTRI, 

Mitsubishi, MLIT, Nippon, 

Sharyo, Japanese 

Consulate 

September 7, 2006 Program update, technology 

issues 

Korve Engineering Brent Ogden Frequent communication Program updates, alignments 

and station locations 

Livermore (the City of) Debbie Bell 

Bob Vinn 

Frequent communication Program updates 

 Cheri Sheets 

Bob Vinn 

Debbie Bell 

March 9, 2006 

March 15, 2006 

June 30, 2006 

Alternatives and issues, program 

updates, conceptual engineering 

LTK Tom Matoff Frequent communication Program updates, technical 

studies, methodologies 

Luckhart, Charlie and 

Jeff O’Neil 

Charlie Luckhart November 17, 2005 Program update, alignments 

through Mt. Hamiliton range 

Menlo Park (City of) Chip Taylor June 20, 2006 Program update, conceptual 

engineering 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 11 Organization, Agency, and Business Outreach 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 11-3

Organization Contact Date Topic 

Merced (City of) James Marshall April 28, 2006 Program update, station and 

alignment options 

James Marshall June 30, 2006 Program update, conceptual 

engineering 

Merced County 

Association of 

Governments 

Jesse Brown April 28, 2006 

June 30, 2006 

Program update, Merced station 

locations, alignment issues 

Merced Economic 

Development 

Corporation 

Elaine Trevino Frequent communication Station locations, UC Merced 

Metropolitan 

Transportation 

Commission (MTC) 

Doug Kimsey Frequent communication Program updates, alignment 

options 

Ashley Nguyen Frequent communication Program updates, alignment 

issues 

MTC Board May 12, 2006 Presentations 

Modesto (City of) George Britton 

Miguel Galvez 

April 28, 2006 Program update, alignment and 

station options 

Nicholas Pinhey 

Miguel Galvez 

June 30, 2006 Program update, conceptual 

engineering 

Native American 

Heritage Commission 

 Debbie Pilas-Treadway Frequent communication Program updates, alignment and 

station locations, Native 

American outreach efforts 

The Nature Conservancy Lloyd Wagstaff February 27, 2006 Program updates, alignment 

options 

Lloyd Wagstaff October 16, 2006 Alignment issues 

Newark (City of) Peggy Claassen June 20, 2006 Program update, conceptual 

engineering 

Oakland (City of) Shanna O’Hare November 16, 2005 

February 10, 2006 

Program update 

 Shanna O’Hare Frequent communication Program updates, East Bay 

station/alignment issues 

Planning and 

Conservation League 

Gary Patton November 3, 2005 Program update 

Pleasanton (City of) Jerry Iserson June 20, 2006 Program update, conceptual 

engineering 

Rail PAC Richard Silver Frequent communication Program updates 

Paul Dyson January 28, 2006 

May 15, 2006 

Program updates 

 Annual Conference 

(Richard Silver contact) 

January 28, 2006 Presentation 

Regional Rail Steering 

Committee Meeting 

Ashley Nguyen May 10, 2006 

December 13, 2006 

Updates on Program EIR/EIS, 

alignments under investigation 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 11 Organization, Agency, and Business Outreach 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 11-4

Organization Contact Date Topic 

Regional Rail Program 

Management Team 

Meeting 

Ashley Nguyen January 11, 2006 

February 1 & 15, 2006 

March 1, 15, & 29, 2006 

April 5, 19, & 26, 2006 

May 24, 2006 

June 7 & 21, 2006 

July 12, 2006 

August 2 & 16, 2006 

September 6 & 20, 2006 

October 4 & 18, 2006 

November 15, 2006 

January 10, 2007 

January 31, 2007 

February 14, 2007 

Updates on Program EIR/EIS, 

alignments under investigation, 

ridership forecasts, travel times, 

cost estimates. 

Sacramento COG Olin Woods Frequent communication Program updates, alignment and 

station issues 

SACOG Regional 

Planning Partnership 

Olin Woods January 26, 2006 Presentation, program update 

Samtrans Howard Goode 

Ian McAvoy 

Bob Dotey 

Frequent communication Program update, San Francisco 

Peninsula alignment, Caltrain 

right-of-way, design 

 Ian McAvoy 

Bob Dotey 

December 14, 2005 Program update 

San Francisco (City and 

County of) 

Michael Coen November 4, 2005 Monthly meetings on Transbay 

Transit Center 

Michael Coen Frequent communication Program updates, station and 

alignment issues 

San Joaquin COG Danielle Kockman April 28, 2006 Program updates, station and 

alignment options 

San Jose (City of) Ben Tripousis November 30, 2005 

January 20, 2006 

Program updates 

Council Member Madison 

Nguyen 

March 13, 2006 Program update 

Ben Tripousis Frequent communication Program updates, South Bay 

station and alignment issues 

San Ramon (City of) Lisa Bobadilla March 10, 2006 Program update 

San Francisco Planning 

and Urban Research 

(SPUR) 

Gabriel Metcalf Frequent communication Program update, alignment 

issues 

Siemens Wayne Williams 

Frank Guzzo 

Frequent communications Program updates 

Sierra Club California Ken Ryan January 28, 2006 Program update, alignment 

options 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 11 Organization, Agency, and Business Outreach 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 11-5

Organization Contact Date Topic 

 Ken Ryan 

Patrick Moore 

February 28, 2006 Presentation 

Ken Ryan Frequent communication Program updates, 

alignment/station options 

Silicon Valley Leadership 

Group 

Laura Susinski Frequent communication Program updates, South Bay 

station and alignment issues 

Laura Susinski November 30, 2006 Presentations 

Stanislaus County George Stillman April 28, 2006 Program update, alignment and 

station issues 

State Parks Foundation Elizabeth Goldstein 

Traci Verdugo 

March 6, 2006 Alignment issues, parklands 

Traci Verdugo November 8, 2006 Alignment issues, update 

TRAC (Train Riders 

Association of 

California) 

Gerald Cauthen Frequent communication Alignment options and Altamont 

Pass, program updates 

Tracy (City of) Dan Hobbs April 27, 2006 Program update 

 Dan Hobbs 

Julie Yuan-Miu 

Kuldeep Sharma 

June 30, 2006 Program update, conceptual 

engineering 

Transbay Transit Center Liz Wiecha 

Maria Ayerdi 

Heather Barber 

Frequent communication Program updates, station and 

alignment issues 

Maria Ayerdi August 11, 2006 Alignment and station issues 

Transmetrics Jack Ybarra Frequent communication Program updates 

Transportation and Land 

Use Coalition (TALC) 

Stuart Cohen Frequent communication Program updates, potential 

stations, TOD 

Tri-Valley Regional Rail 

Policy Working Group 

Bob Vinn, City of 

Livermore 

June 13, 2006 

September 19, 2006 

Program updates, potential 

stations and alignment 

alternatives 

U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers 

Robert Smith December 13, 2005 Alignment options, system 

alternatives, program update 

Robert Smith March 1, 2006 Review of purpose and need, 

system alternatives, and 

environmental analysis 

methodologies 

Robert Smith April 18, 2006 

April 19, 2006 

Review of purpose and need, 

system alternatives, and 

environmental analysis 

methodologies 

Robert Smith Frequent communication Program updates, environmental 

methods, alignments 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 11 Organization, Agency, and Business Outreach 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 11-6

Organization Contact Date Topic 

U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency 

Connell Dunning 

Erin Foresman 

December 13, 2005 Alignment options, system 

alternatives, program update 

Connel Dunning March 1, 2006 Review of purpose and need, 

system alternatives, and 

environmental analysis 

methodologies 

Connell Dunning April 18, 2006 Review of purpose and need, 

system alternatives, and 

environmental analysis 

methodologies 

Connell Dunning Frequent communication Alignment options, environmental 

methodologies, program updates 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife 

Service 

Mark Littlefield April 19, 2006 Agency coordination meeting 

U.S. FTA Ray Sukys April 19, 2006 Agency coordination meeting 

UC Berkeley Professor Betty Deakin June 1, 2006 Program update 

Union City (City of) Mark Leonard 

Mintze Cheng 

Joan Malloy 

June 20, 2006 Program update, conceptual 

engineering 

VTA Michael Burns 

Kurt Evans 

November 30, 2006 Program update 

 Michael Burns 

Kurt Evans 

March 13, 2006 Alignment issues, program 

update 

Kevin Connoly May 3, 2006 

June 20, 2006 

Program update, potential 

alignments, conceptual 

engineering 

Kurt Evans Frequent communication Program updates, South Bay 

alignment issues 

WTS Seminar Ashley Nguyen September 6, 2006 Presentation at MTC 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 12-1

12 LIST OF PREPARERS 

12.1 California High-Speed Rail Authority 

Dan Leavitt, Deputy Director 

Carrie Pourvahidi, Deputy Director 

12.2 Federal Railroad Administration 

David Valenstein, Environmental Program Manager 

William Fashouer, Assistant Chief Counsel for General Law (NEPA Review) 

12.3 List of Consultants 

Name Title Responsibility 

Dave Mansen Vice President, Parsons Project Manager 

Craig Richey Assistant Planner, Parsons Land Use and Section 4(f) and 6(f) 

Resources 

Soumya Ananthanarayanan Environmental Planner, Parsons Land Use 

Traffic and Transportation 

Gui Shearing Transportation Planning Manager, 

Parsons 

Traffic and Transportation 

Indu Sreedevi Senior Transportation Systems 

Analyst, Parsons 

Traffic and Transportation 

Linda McGlochlin Wolff Project Manager, California 

Professional Geologist, California 

Certified Hydrogeologist, Parsons 

Hazardous Materials 

Michael Kiesling Principal, Architecture 21 Aesthetic and Visual Resources 

Kip Field Project Manager, PB Americas, Inc. Discipline Co-Lead Capital Costs, 

Alternatives 

Dominic Spaethling Bay Area Regional Program 

Manager, PB Americas, Inc. 

Discipline Co-Lead Capital Costs, 

Alternatives 

Alice Lovegrove Senior Environmental Engineer, PB 

Americas, Inc. 

Co-Discipline Lead 

Air Quality 

Eddie Tadross Senior Environmental Engineer, PB 

Americas, Inc. 

Co-Discipline Lead 

Air Quality 

Neal Mace Senior Engineering Geologist, 

Geotechnical Consultants, Inc. 

Geology and Soils 

Kenneth M. Bogdan Environmental Counsel, Principal, 

Jones & Stokes 

Environmental Counsel 

Cumulative Impacts 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 12 List of Preparers 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 12-2

Name Title Responsibility 

David Freytag Principal, Jones & Stokes Discipline Co-Lead, QA/QC 

Hydrology and Water Quality, Energy, 

Cultural Resources, Biological Resources 

and Wetlands, Agricultural Resources, 

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 

Jennifer Rogers Environmental Planner II, Jones & 

Stokes 

Cumulative Impacts 

Donna McCormick Associate Principal, Jones & Stokes Discipline Lead 

Agricultural Resources 

Steve Avery Associate Principal, Jones & Stokes Discipline Lead 

Biological Resources and Wetlands 

William Kohn, Jr. Environmental Planner III, Jones & 

Stokes 

Discipline Co-Lead 

Biological Resources and Wetlands 

Chariss Tweedy. Environmental Planner, Jones & 

Stokes 

Discipline Co-Lead 

Biological Resources and Wetlands 

Brian Ramos Senior Environmental Planner, 

Jones & Stokes 

Discipline Lead 

Cultural Resources 

Christiann Havelaar Environmental Planner III, Jones & 

Stokes 

Discipline Co-Lead 

Cultural Resources 

Nate Martin Environmental Planner III, Jones & 

Stokes 

Discipline Co-Lead 

Hydrology and Water Quality 

Nicole Breznock Environmental Planner II, Jones & 

Stokes 

Discipline Co-Lead 

Hydrology and Water Quality 

Daniel Schiff Environmental Planner, Jones & 

Stokes 

GIS 

Aaron Carter Environmental Planner, Jones & 

Stokes 

GIS 

Garrick Jones Environmental Planner, Jones & 

Stokes 

Discipline Lead 

Energy 

Asher Sheppard Environmental Scientist, PB 

Americas, Inc. 

Discipline Lead 

EMI/EMF 

Steven Wolf Senior Environmental Planner, PB 

Americas, Inc. 

Discipline Co Lead Noise and Vibration 

Kevin Keller Senior Environmental Planner, PB 

Americas, Inc. 

Discipline Co Lead Noise and Vibration 

Robert Malone Senior Planner, PB Americas, Inc. Discipline Lead 

Public Utilities 

Paul Mosier Senior Rail Operations Engineer, PB 

Americas, Inc. 

Discipline Lead 

Operations Planning 

Discipline Co-Lead Engineering Criteria 

Melissa Rodriguez Civil Engineer, PB Americas, Inc. Discipline Co-Lead 

Capital Costs and Engineering Criteria 

George Mazur Senior Transportation Engineer, 

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 

Discipline Lead 

Economics/Growth 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 12 List of Preparers 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 12-3

Name Title Responsibility 

Ellen Unsworth Managing Editor, Jones & Stokes Editorial Lead 

Mindy Higginson Support Editor, Jones & Stokes Technical Editor 

Darle Tilly Lead Editor, Jones & Stokes Technical Editor 

Corrine Ortega Publications Specialist, 

Jones & Stokes 

Word Processing 

Jenelle Mountain Publications Specialist, 

Jones & Stokes 

Word Processing 

Susan Davis Web Services Leader, 

Jones & Stokes 

Electronic Publishing 

Senh Saelee Graphics Specialist, 

Jones & Stokes 

Graphics 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 13-1

13 FINAL PROGRAM EIR/EIS DISTRIBUTION 

The statewide distribution of the Final Program EIR/EIS emphasizes the use of electronic media to 

ensure cost-effective, broad availability to the public and interested parties. The entire Final Program 

EIR/EIS, appendices, and supporting reports are available on the Internet at the Authority’s website 

(www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov). The Final Program EIR/EIS is also available at the repositories listed 

below. Electronic CD copies of the document are also available on request at the office of the Authority, 

925 L Street, Suite 1425, Sacramento, CA 95814. 

All persons, agencies, and organizations listed in this chapter have been informed of the availability of 

and locations to obtain the Final Program EIR/EIS. Repositories and cooperating federal agencies were 

sent both hard and electronic copies of the Final Program EIR/EIS and appendices. Other federal 

agencies, state agencies, and selected interested parties listed below have received summary chapters 

and electronic copies of the Final Program EIR/EIS. All commenters are at a minimum receiving an 

electronic copy of the Final Program EIR/EIS (see index for Volume III for a complete list commenters). 

Federal, state, and county elected officials, mayors of cities with possible stations, and potentially 

affected local agencies listed below were mailed informational material about how to get a copy of the 

Final Program EIR/EIS. Additional local elected officials and agency representatives, along with all 

others on the project mailing list (approximately 3,200 contacts), have been mailed a notification that 

includes information about how to access the Final Program EIR/EIS. 

13.1 Repository Locations 

Modesto: Stanislaus County Library, Government Documents Section, 1500 I Street, Modesto, 

CA 95354 

Phone: (209) 558-7890 

Contact: Charles Teval, Branch Manager 

Oakland: Oakland Public Library, 125 14th Street, Oakland, CA 94612 

Phone: (510) 238-3134 

Contact: Pat Coffey, Government Documents Section 

Sacramento: Sacramento Central Library, 828 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 

Phone: (916) 264-2795 ex. 2 

Contact: James Scott, Librarian 

Sacramento: California State Library, Government Publications Section, PO Box 942837, 

Sacramento, CA 94237-0001 

Phone: (916) 651-6813 

Contact: Janet Cole, Government Publications Librarian 

San Francisco: San Francisco Main Library, Government Information Center, 100 Larkin Street, 

Civic Center, San Francisco, CA 94102 

Phone: (415) 557-4500 

Contact: Therese Cason, California Documents Librarian 

San Jose: Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Library, Reference Department, 150 East San Fernando 

Street, San Jose, CA 95112 

Phone: (408) 808-2094 

Contact: David Kravitz, Reference Department 

Palo Alto: Palo Alto Main Library, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, 94303 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 13 Program EIR/EIS Distribution 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 13-2

Phone: (650) 329-2641 

Contact: Deborah Angel, Librarian 

Mountain View: City of Mountain View General Public Library, 585 Franklin Street, Mountain 

View, 94040 

Phone: 650-903-6337 

Contact: Alice Chu, Library Assistant 

Gilroy: Gilroy Library, 7387 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, CA 95020 

Phone: (408) 842-8207 

Contact: Sally Leete, Adult Program Librarian 

Fremont: Fremont Main Library, Reference Department, 2400 Stevenson Boulevard, Fremont, CA 

94538 

Phone: (510) 745-1400 

Contact: Jackie Beth, Reference Librarian 

Stockton: Cesar Chavez Central Library, 605 North El Dorado Street, Stockton, CA 95202 

Phone: (209) 937-8221 

Contact: Gretchen Louden, Government Documents Librarian 

Merced: Merced County Library, 2100 O Street, Merced, CA 95340 

Phone: 209-385-7643 

Contact: Victoria Mrozek, Librarian 

Livermore: Livermore Public Library, 1188 S Livermore Ave., Livermore, CA 94550 

Phone: (925) 373-5500 

Contact: Rosemary Dukelow, Supervising Librarian 

Pleasanton: Pleasanton Public Library, 400 Old Bernal Avenue, Pleasanton, CA 94566 

Phone (925) 931 3400 ext. 21 

Contact: Mary Corpora, Sr. Reference Librarian 

Tracy: Tracy Branch Library, 20 E. Eaton Ave., Tracy, CA 95376-3100 

Phone: (209) 937-8221 

Contact: Kathleen Buffleben, Branch Librarian 

Washington DC: Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC 

20590 

Phone: (202) 493-6368 

Contact: David Valenstein, Environmental Program Manager 

13.2 Federal Agencies 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Executive Director, Washington DC 

Bureau of Indian Affairs, Regional Director, Sacramento, CA 

Bureau of Land Management, State Director, Sacramento, CA 

Federal Aviation Administration, Planning and Programming Branch, Supervisor, Capacity Section, 

Lawndale, CA 

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Region 9, Regional Director, Oakland, CA 

Federal Highway Administration, Environmental Program Coordinator, Sacramento, CA 

Federal Transit Administration, Region 9, Office of Planning and Program Development, Director, 

San Francisco, CA 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 13 Program EIR/EIS Distribution 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 13-3

Federal Transit Administration, Washington DC 

Governor's Office of Planning and Research-State Clearinghouse, Sacramento, CA 

National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Assistant 

Regional Administrator for Habitat Conservation, Long Beach, CA 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch, Sacramento District, Sacramento, CA 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch, San Francisco District, San Francisco, CA 

U.S. Coast Guard, District 11, Chief of Staff, Alameda, CA 

U.S. Department of Agriculture – National Resource Conservation Service, State Resource 

Conservationist, Davis, CA 

U.S. Department of Agriculture – Farm Service Agency, California State Executive Director, Davis, 

CA 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Director, Washington DC 

U.S. Department of Transportation – Federal Railroad Administration, Washington DC 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Federal Activities, EIS Filing Section, Washington 

DC 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, San Francisco, CA & Washington DC 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fish & Wildlife Biologist, Sacramento, CA 

U.S. Forest Service, Regional Forester Representative, Vallejo, CA 

U.S. National Park Service, Regional Director Pacific West Region & Environmental Coordinator, 

Oakland, CA 

13.3 State Agencies 

California Air Resources Board, Chair, Sacramento 

California Business, Transportation and Housing Agency, Agency Secretary, Sacramento 

California Coastal Commission, Director, San Francisco 

California Department of Boating and Waterways, Director, Sacramento 

California Department of Conservation, Director, Sacramento 

California Department of Fish and Game, Program Coordinator for Environmental Review and 

Permitting, Sacramento 

California Department of Housing and Community Development, Director, Sacramento 

California Department of Parks and Recreation, Resource Management Division, Chief of Natural 

Resources, Sacramento 

California Department of Pesticide Regulation, Director, Sacramento 

California Department of Transportation, Chief Deputy Director, Sacramento and District Directors 

from Districts 3, 4, 5, 6 and 10 

California Department of Water Resources, Environmental Services Office, Regulatory Staff, 

Sacramento 

California Energy Commission, Executive Director, Sacramento 

California Environmental Protection Agency, Secretary for Environmental Protection, Sacramento 

California Geologic Survey, Supervising Geologist, Sacramento 

California Health and Human Services, Secretary, Sacramento 

California Integrated Waste Management Board, Executive Director, Sacramento 

California Native Plant Society, Executive Director, Sacramento 

California Public Utilities Commission, Rail Safety & Crossing Branch, Staff, San Francisco 

California State Lands Commission, Executive Officer, Sacramento 

California State Resources Agency, Secretary, Sacramento 

California Transportation Commission, Executive Director, Sacramento 

Department of Toxic Substances Control, Director, Sacramento 

Native American Heritage Commission, Environmental Specialist, Sacramento 

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Director, Sacramento 

Office of Stateside Health Planning and Development, Director, Sacramento 

Planning and Conservation League, Executive Director, Sacramento 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 13 Program EIR/EIS Distribution 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 13-4

State Coastal Conservancy, Executive Officer, Oakland 

State Historic Preservation Officer, State Historian, Sacramento 

State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, Sacramento 

State Water Resources Control Board, Water Quality Division, Regulatory Staff, Sacramento 

13.4 Elected Officials 

13.4.1 Federal Elected Officials 

A. U.S. SENATORS 

The Honorable Barbara Boxer, U.S. Senate, California 

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein, U.S. Senate, California 

B. U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

The Honorable Dennis A. Cardoza, 18th Congressional District 

The Honorable Jim Costa, 20th Congressional District 

The Honorable John Doolittle, 4th Congressional District 

The Honorable Anna G. Eshoo, 14th Congressional District 

The Honorable Michael Honda, 15th Congressional District 

The Honorable Tom Lantos, 12th Congressional District 

The Honorable Barbara Lee, 9th Congressional District 

The Honorable Zoe Lofgren, 16th Congressional District 

The Honorable Daniel Lungren, 3rd Congressional District 

The Honorable Doris O. Matsui, 5th Congressional District 

The Honorable George Miller, 7th Congressional District 

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi, 8th Congressional District 

The Honorable Jerry McNerney, 11th Congressional District 

The Honorable George P. Radanovich, 19th Congressional District 

The Honorable Fortney “Pete” Stark, 13th Congressional District 

The Honorable Ellen Tauscher, 10th Congressional District 

13.4.2 State Elected Officials 

A. GOVERNOR 

The Honorable Arnold Schwarzenegger, California Governor 

B. STATE SENATE 

The Honorable Elaine Alquist, 13th Senate District, San Jose 

The Honorable Dave Cox, 1st Senate District, Roseville 

The Honorable Ellen Corbett, 10th Senate District, Fremont 

The Honorable Jeffrey Denham, 12th Senate District, Merced County 

The Honorable Dean Florez, 16th Senate District, Fresno 

The Honorable Michael Machado, 5th Senate District, Stockton 

The Honorable Abel Maldonado, 15th Senate District, Santa Cruz 

The Honorable Carole Migden, 3rd Senate District, San Rafael 

The Honorable Darrell Steinberg, 6th Senate District, Sacramento 

The Honorable Don Perata, 9th Senate District, Oakland 

The Honorable Dave Cogdill, 14th Senate District, Fresno 

The Honorable Joseph S. Simitian, 11th Senate District, Palo Alto 

The Honorable Leland Yee, 8th Senate District, San Mateo 

The Honorable Tom Torlakson, 7th Senate District, Concord 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 13 Program EIR/EIS Distribution 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 13-5

C. STATE ASSEMBLY 

The Honorable Greg Aghazarian, 26th Assembly District, Stockton 

The Honorable Juan Arambula, 31st Assembly District, Fresno 

The Honorable Mark DeSaulnier, 11th Assembly District, Martinez 

The Honorable Sandre R. Swanson, 16th Assembly District, Oakland 

The Honorable Tom Berryhill, 25th Assembly District, Modesto 

The Honorable Jim Beall Jr., 24th Assembly District, Campbell 

The Honorable Joe Coto, 23rd Assembly District, San Jose 

The Honorable Guy S. Houston, 15th Assembly District, Livermore/Walnut Creek/Brentwood 

The Honorable Dave Jones, 9th Assembly District, Sacramento 

The Honorable Mary Hayashi, 18th Assembly District, Hayward 

The Honorable Sally J. Lieber, 22nd Assembly District, San Jose 

The Honorable Mark Leno, 13th Assembly District, San Francisco 

The Honorable Ted Gaines, 4th Assembly District, Roseville 

The Honorable Cathleen Galgiani, 17th Assembly District, Stockton 

The Honorable Gene Mullin, 19th Assembly District, San Mateo 

The Honorable Roger Niello, 5th Assembly District, Sacramento 

The Honorable Ira Ruskin, 21st Assembly District, Palo Alto 

The Honorable Anna M. Caballero, 28th Assembly District, Salinas 

The Honorable Alberto Torrico, 20th Assembly District, Fremont 

The Honorable Michael N. Villines, 29th Assembly District, Fresno 

The Honorable Lois Wolk, 8th Assembly District, Vacaville

The Honorable Fiona Ma, 12th Assembly District, San Francisco 

D. STATEWIDE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CHAIRPERSON 

Mr. Donald F. Gage, Santa Clara County 

Mr. Scott Haggerty, Alameda County 

Mr. Bob Waterson, Fresno County 

Mr. Don Nottoli, Sacramento County 

Mr. Frank Bigelow, Madera County 

Ms. Rose Jacobs Gibson, San Mateo County 

Mr. William O’Brien, Stanislaus County 

Mr. Victor Mow, San Joaquin County 

Mr. Mike J. Reagan, Solano County 

Mr. Aaron Peskin, San Francisco County 

Mr. John Pedrozo, Merced County 

Ms. Mary N. Piepho, Contra Costa County 

E. MAYORS OF CITIES WITH POTENTIAL STATIONS 

The Honorable Mayor Jerry Brown, Oakland 

The Honorable Mayor Jim Burch, Palo Alto 

The Honorable Mayor Ron Gonzales, San Jose 

The Honorable Mayor Mark Green, Union City 

The Honorable Mayor Jeff Ira, Redwood City 

The Honorable Mayor Dennis Kennedy, Morgan Hill 

The Honorable Mayor Gavin Newsom, San Francisco 

The Honorable Mayor Al Pinheiro, Gilroy 

The Honorable Mayor Jim Ridenour, Modesto 

The Honorable Mayor Hubert Walsh, Merced 

The Honorable Mayor Marc Hershman, Millbrae 

The Honorable Mayor Jennifer Hosterman, Pleasanton 

The Honorable Mayor Marshall Kamena, Livermore 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 13 Program EIR/EIS Distribution 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 13-6

The Honorable Mayor Brent H. Ives, Tracy 

The Honorable Mayor Joan Faul, Atwater 

The Honorable Mayor Robert Wasserman, Fremont 

Note: Other local elected officials not listed here have been notified regarding the availability of 

the Draft Program EIR/EIS. 

13.5 Regional/Local Agencies 

Alameda County Transportation Improvement Authority, Executive Director, Oakland 

Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Executive Officer, San Francisco 

Bay Area Council, President and CEO, San Francisco 

Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART), President of the BART Board, Oakland 

Caltrain – Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board, Board Secretary, San Carlos 

Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority, Chairperson, Oakland 

Council of Fresno County Governments, Executive Director, Fresno 

Merced County Association of Governments, Chairperson, Merced 

Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Executive Director, Oakland 

Sacramento Area Council of Governments, Board of Directors Chairperson, Sacramento 

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, Chairperson, Sacramento 

Sacramento Transportation Authority, Executive Director, Sacramento 

San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, Executive Director, San Francisco 

San Joaquin Council of Governments, Executive Director, Stockton 

San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission, Chairperson, Stockton 

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, Governing Board Chairperson, Fresno 

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, Vice Chair, Fresno 

San Mateo County Transit District, Board of Directors Chairperson, San Carlos 

San Mateo County Transportation Authority, Board of Directors Chairperson, San Carlos 

Stanislaus Council of Governments, Executive Director, Modesto 

Solano Transportation Authority, Executive Director, Solano 

13.6 Organizations and Businesses 

Amtrak, Mayors Advisory Council, Bakersfield 

Amtrak, President & CEO Amtrak, Washington 

Bay Area Council, President and CEO, San Francisco 

Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway, Director of Public Affairs, Los Angeles 

California Aviation Alliance, Executive Director, Vacaville 

California Native Plant Society, Executive Director, Sacramento 

California-Nevada Super Speed Train Commission 

Great Valley Center, President, Modesto 

Natural Resources Defense Council, Regional Director, San Francisco 

Planning and Conservation League, Executive Director, Sacramento 

Rail Passenger Association of California, Executive Director, San Francisco 

San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association, President, San Francisco 

Sierra Club California, Executive Committee Chair, Sacramento 

Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group, Associate Director, Transportation & Land Use, San Jose 

The Nature Conservancy, Regional Director, San Francisco 

Train Riders Association of California, Executive Director, Sacramento 

Union Pacific Railroad, Special Representative, Sacramento 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 13 Program EIR/EIS Distribution 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 13-7

13.7 Native American Contacts 

Doug Alger, Cultural Resources 

Coordinator 

Salinan Nation Cultural Preservation 

Association 

Lockwood, CA 

Pamela Baumgartner, Tribal 

Administrator 

Ione Band of Miwok Indians* 

Ione, CA 

Lawrence Bill. Interim Chairperson 

Sierra Nevada Native American Coalition 

Dunlap, CA 

Christine Boston, Environmental 

Coordinator 

Ione Band of Miwok Indians* 

Ione, CA 

Patricia Ann Murphy Brattland 

Vice-Chair, Native American Advisory 

Council to CDF 

El Cajon, CA 

Tribal Affiliation: Dumna/Kechayi Yokuts 

Anthony Brochini, Chairperson 

Southern Sierra Miwuk Nation 

Mariposa, CA 

Jerry Brown 

Chaushiha Tribe 

Fresno, CA 

Silvia Burley, Chairperson 

California Valley Miwok Tribe* 

(Formerly Sheep Ranch) 

Stockton, CA 

Rosemary Cambra, Chairperson 

Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the SF 

Bay Area 

Milpitas, CA 

Mary Camp, Tribal Administrator 

Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk 

Tuolumne, CA 

Gregg Castro, Administrator 

Salinan Nation Cultural Preservation 

Association 

San Jose, CA 

Stanley Robert Cox, Cultural Resources 

Department 

Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians* 

Tuolumne, CA 

Tribal Affiliation: Me-wuk, Miwok 

Leland Daniels 

Sacramento, CA 95828 

Tribal Affiliation: Miwok 

Kevin Day, Tribal Chair 

Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians* 

Tuolumne, CA 

Tribal Affiliation: Me-wuk, Miwok 

Robert Duckworth, Environmental 

Coordinator 

Salinan Nation Cultural Preservation 

Association 

Greenfield, CA 

Dwight Dutschke Chairperson 

Sierra Native American Council 

Ione, CA 

Billie Blue Elliston 

Galt, CA 

Tribal Affiliation: Miwok 

Elaine Fink, Chairperson 

North Fork Rancheria 

North Fork, CA 

Judy Fink, Chairperson 

North Fork Rancheria 

North Fork, CA 

Tribal Affiliation: Mono 

Mathew Franklin, Chairperson 

Ione Band of Miwok Indians* 

Ione, CA 

Tribal Affiliation: Miwok 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 13 Program EIR/EIS Distribution 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 13-8

Jose Freeman, President 

Salinan Nation Cultural Preservation 

Association 

Woodland, CA 

Tribal Affiliation: Salinan 

Reba Fuller 

Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians 

Tuolumne, CA 

Andrew A. Galvan 

Fremont, CA 

Tribal Affiliation: Ohlone, Bay Miwok, 

Plains Miwok, Patwin 

Ramona Garibay, Representative 

Trina Marine Ruano Family 

Newark, CA 

Tribal Affiliation: Ohlone - Costanoan, 

Bay Miwok, Plains Miwok, Patwin 

Ron Goode 

North Fork Mono Tribe 

Clovis, CA 

Durta Graham, Chairperson 

Picayune Rancheria of Chuckchansi 

Coarsegold, CA 

Emmaline Hammond 

Chukchansi Tribe 

Oakhurst, CA 

Donna Haro 

Xolon Salinan Tribe 

Bay Point, CA 

Tribal Affiliation: Salinan 

Ione Band of Miwok Indians 

Heritage Cultural Committee 

Ione, CA 

Les James 

Southern Sierra Miwuk Nation 

Mariposa, CA 

Jay Johnson, Spiritual Leader 

Southern Sierra Miwuk Nation 

Mariposa, CA 

Jakki Kehl 

Patterson, CA 

Edward Ketchum 

Amah Mutsun Tribal Band 

Davis, CA 

Karin Wilson Kirkendal, Chairperson 

Dumna Tribal Government 

Fresno, CA 

Gaylen D. Lee 

North Fork, CA 

Tribal Affiliation: North Fork Mono 

Rancheria 

Valentin Lopez, Chairperson 

Sacramento, CA 

Tribal Affiliation: Ohlone - Costanoan 

Shirley Macagni, Cultural Resources 

Representative 

Salinan Tribe of Monterey and San Luis 

Obispo Counties 

Nipomo, CA 

Tribal Affiliation: Salinan 

Mary Motola, Cultural Specialist 

Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi* 

Samuel Elizondo, Environmental Director 

Coarsegold, CA 

Tribal Affiliation: Chukchansi 

Frank Navarrette, Environmental Planner 

Ione Band of Miwok Indians 

Ione, CA 

Tribal Affiliation: Miwok 

Katherine Erolinda Perez 

North Valley Yokuts Tribe 

Linden, CA 

Neal Peyron, Chairperson 

Tule River Indian Tribe* 

Porterville, CA 

Bonnie Pierce 

Los Osos, CA 

Lorrie Planas 

Choinumni Tribe 

Clovis, CA 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 13 Program EIR/EIS Distribution 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 13-9

Jim Redmoon 

Cultural Resources Representative 

Dumna Tribal Government 

Fresno, CA 

Majorie Ann Reid 

Redding, CA 

Tribal Affiliation: Ohlone, Costanoan 

Tina Reynolds, Executive Secretary 

Ione Band of Miwok Indians 

Ione, CA 

Ann Marie Sayers, Chairperson 

Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of 

Costanoan 

Hollister, CA 

Tribal Affiliation: Ohlone - Costanoan 

Mary Daniels-Tarango 

Wilton Rancheria 

Sacramento, CA 

Tribal Affiliation: Miwok 

Keith Turner, Tribal Contact 

Dumna/Wo-Wah Tribal Government 

Auberry, CA 

Tribal Affiliation: Dumna/Foothill Yokuts, 

Mono 

Kenneth Woodrow 

Salinas, CA 

Xielolixii 

Salinan Nation Cultural Preservation 

Association 

Bakersfield, CA 

Randy Yonemura 

Sacramento, CA 

Tribal Affiliation: Miwok 

Michelle Zimmer, Cultural Resource 

Coordinator 

Amah/Mutsun Tribal Band 

Woodside, CA 

Irene Zwierlein, Chairperson 

Amah/Mutsun Tribal Band 

Woodside, CA 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 14-1

14 SOURCES USED IN DOCUMENT PREPARATION 

This chapter lists the sources used in the preparation of this document. The sources are listed by 

chapter, and by section in the case of Chapter 3. The sources include printed material, Web-based 

material, and personal communications. 

14.1 Summary 

California High-Speed Rail Authority. 2004. Tunneling issues report. January. 

California High-Speed Rail Authority and Federal Railroad Administration. 2004. Engineering criteria. 

———. 2005. Final program environmental impact report/environmental impact statement (EIR/EIS) for 

the proposed California high-speed train system. 

———. 2006. Draft alignment alternatives and potential station locations options report. 

———. 2006. Additional potential HST alignments and stations considered but rejected report. 

14.2 Chapter 1 Purpose and Need and Objectives 

California High-Speed Rail Authority and Federal Railroad Administration. 2005. Final Program 

Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) for the Proposed California 

High-Speed Train System. Sacramento, CA. 

California High-Speed Rail Authority. 2000. High-speed train system business plan. Sacramento, CA. 

Cambridge Systematics. 2007. Bay Area/California High-Speed Rail ridership and revenue forecasting 

study: final report. Prepared for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the California 

High-Speed Rail Authority. July. 

Federal Railroad Administration. 2007. Office of safety analysis, internet site: 

http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov (March 2007) 

National Center for Statistics and Analysis. 2006.Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS). Available: 

<www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-30/ncsa/FARS.html>. 

National Transportation Safety Board. 2000. 

Office of the Inspector General. 2000. Audit report no. CR-2000-112, Air carrier flight delays and 

cancellations. July 25. Washington, D.C. 

San Francisco Chronicle, April 26, 2001 

San Francisco Chronicle, February 8, 2005 

Southern California Association of Governments. 2001. 2001 regional transportation plan update. Los 

Angles, CA. 

U.S. Department of Transportation. 2003. Air travel consumer report. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 14 Sources Used in Document Preparation 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 14-2

Young, E. 2003. San Francisco Business Times. December 12, 2003. 

14.3 Chapter 2 Alternatives 

California Department of Transportation. 1994. Los Angeles-Bakersfield preliminary engineering 

feasibility study final report. 

California High-Speed Rail Authority. 1999. California high-speed rail corridor evaluation. Prepared by 

Parsons Brinckerhoff. December. 

———. 2000. Final business plan, ridership and revenue. Sacramento, CA. 

———. 2004. Tunneling issues report. January. 

———. 2004. Engineering criteria. January. 

California High-Speed Rail Authority and Federal Railroad Administration. 2004. Engineering Criteria. 

———. 2005. Final program environmental impact report/environmental impact statement (EIR/EIS) for 

the proposed California high-speed train system. Sacramento, CA. 

———. 2006. Bay Area to Central Valley scoping report. 

———. 2006. Additional potential HST alignment and stations considered but rejected report. 

———. 2006. Draft alignment alternatives and potential station locations options report. 

California Intercity High-Speed Rail Commission. 1996. Corridor evaluation and environmental 

constraints analysis. 

Cambridge Systematics. 2007. Bay Area/California High-Speed Rail ridership and revenue forecasting 

study: final report. Prepared for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the California 

High-Speed Rail Authority. July. 

Charles River Associates. 1996. Independent ridership and passenger revenue projections for highspeed rail alternatives in California. July. 

———. 2000. Independent ridership and passenger revenue projections for high-speed rail alternatives 

in California, draft final report. Prepared for the California High-Speed Rail Authority. 

Council of Fresno County Governments. 2004. Regional transportation plan. Adopted July 22, 2004. 

Federal Railroad Administration. 1997. High-speed ground transportation for America. 

Merced County Association of Governments (MCAG). 2004. Regional transportation plan for Merced 

County. Adopted August 19, 2004. 

Metropolitan Transpiration Commission (MTC). 2005. Transportation 2030 Plan for the San Francisco 

Bay Area. February. 

———. 2007. Memorandum, Route Adoption, 10-MER-152 PM 16.0/24.8 Resolution HRA 07-03l 

November 7-8, 2007.Parsons Brinckerhoff. 2002. Final draft environmental analysis 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 14 Sources Used in Document Preparation 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 14-3

methodologies. Prepared for California High-Speed Rail Authority. November 7. Sacramento, 

CA. 

———. 2002. Plans and profiles. November. Prepared for California High-Speed Rail Authority. 

Sacramento, CA. 

Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG). 2006. Metropolitan transportation plan. Adopted 

March 16, 2006. 

San Joaquin Council of Governments. 2004. Regional transportation plan: Vision 2030. 

Stanislaus Council of Governments. 2004. Regional transportation plan. 

14.4 Chapter 3 Affected Environment 

14.4.1 Section 3.1 Traffic, Transit, Circulation, and Parking 

California Department of Transportation. 2003. CEQA checklist. Available: <www.caltrans.gov>. 

Accessed: November 10, 2003. 

Transportation Research Board. 2000. Highway Capacity Manual 2000. Washington, DC.

14.4.2 Section 3.2 Travel Conditions 

Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 2002 website (http://www.bts.gov/ntda/oai). 

California Department of Transportation. 2001. California aviation system plan. Sacramento, CA. 

———. 2002. LOSSAN corridor draft strategic plan. April. Sacramento, CA. 

California High-Speed Rail Authority. 2000. Final business plan. Sacramento, CA. 

California High-Speed Rail Authority. 2000a. Economic growth effects of the system alternatives for the 

program environmental impact report/environmental impact statement. Sacramento, CA. 

———. 2003. Economic growth effects of the system alternatives for the program environmental impact 

report/environmental impact statement. Sacramento, CA. 

California Highway Patrol. 2000. 

California Transportation Commission. 2000. 2000 annual report to the California legislature, volume 1. 

Sacramento, CA. 

Cambridge Systematics. 2007. Bay Area/California High-Speed Rail ridership and revenue forecasting 

study: final report. Prepared for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the California 

High-Speed Rail Authority. July. 

Charles River Associates, Inc. 2000. Independent ridership and passenger revenue projections for highspeed rail alternatives in California, draft final report. Prepared for the California High-Speed Rail 

Authority. 

———. 2000. Sensitivity analysis. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 14 Sources Used in Document Preparation 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 14-4

Federal Highway Administration Office of Freight Management and Operations. 2003. Aviation in 

California: Benefits to our economy and way of life. Washington, D.C.: Federal Highway 

Administration Office of Freight Management and Operations. 

Hansen, M., G. Gosling, T. Kettunen, and E. Wilkins. 2002. The California aviation system: Current 

status and report trends. Berkeley, CA: University of California Berkeley Institute of 

Transportation Studies. 

Metropolitan Transportation Commission. 2003. San Francisco Bay Area demographic and travel 

characteristics: 1970 to 2020. Oakland, CA. 

Meunier, Jacob. 2001. On the fast track: French railway modernization and the origins of the TGV, 

1944-1983. Westport, CT and London: Praeger publishers. 

Nash, A. 2003. Best practices in shared-use high-speed rail systems. San Jose, CA: San Jose State 

University Minneta Transportation Institute.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 2001. Traffic safety facts 2000. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Transportation. 

San Francisco International Airport. 2003. Building the future. Available: <www.flysfo.com>. 

Accessed: December 2003. 

San Joaquin Council of Governments. 2002. Environmental impact report for the 2001 regional 

transportation plan. Stockton, CA. 

Shrank, D., and T. Lomax. 2002. The 2002 urban mobility report. College Station, TX: Texas 

Transportation Institute. 

Sivak, M., and M. Flannagan. 2002. Flying and driving after the September 11 attacks. University of 

Michigan Transportation Research Institute Research Review, July– September. 

Southern California Association of Governments. 2001. Regional aviation plan for the 2001 regional 

transportation plan. Los Angles, CA. 

Texas Transportation Institute and Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2003. Monitoring urban roadways in 

2001: Using archived operations data for reliability and mobility measurement. April. College 

Station, TX. 

14.4.3 Section 3.3 Air Quality 

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Center for Environmental 

Excellence. 2008. Information on Climate Change and Transportation Available: 

<http://environment.transportation.org/pdf/air_quality/ClimateTransFAQs.zip>. Accessed: 

3/15/08. 

California Air Resources Board, Planning and Technical Support Division. 2003. The 2003 California 

almanac of emissions and air quality. 

California Air Resources Board. 2006. Forecast emissions by summary categories report. 

California Climate Change Center. 2006. Scenarios of Climate Change in California: An Overview. 

February. Sacramento, CA. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 14 Sources Used in Document Preparation 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 14-5

California Department of Transportation. 1997. Transportation project-level carbon monoxide protocol. 

UCD-ITS-RR-97-21. Revised December. Sacramento, CA. 

———. 2006. California motor vehicle stock, travel and fuel forecast. 

California Department of Transportation: Business, Transportation and Housing Agency. 2006. Climate 

Action Program at Caltrans. December. Sacramento, CA. 

California Energy Commission. 2005. California energy demand 2006–2016, staff energy demand 

forecast. Revised September 2005. 

Cambridge Systematics. 2007. Bay Area/California High-Speed Rail ridership and revenue forecasting 

study: alternatives analysis. Prepared for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the 

California High-Speed Rail Authority. June. Oakland, CA. 

Federal Highway Administration. Memo to all FHWA offices from Gloria Shepherd, dated 3/4/2008 

referencing Information on Climate Change and Transportation Available: 

<http://environment.transportation.org/pdf/air_quality/ClimateTransFAQs.zip>. Accessed: 

3/15/08. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 

2006. State of the Climate in 2005. Available: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/

2005/ann/annsum2005.html. 

Parsons Brinckerhoff. 2002. System alternatives definition report. November. 

Shapiro, Hassett, and Arnold. 2002. Conserving energy and preserving the environment: The role of 

public transportation. Prepared for the American Public Transportation Association. 

U.S. Department of Energy. 2006. Transportation energy data book. Edition 25. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. Basic Information: U.S. Climate Policy. Available: 

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basicinfo.html. Accessed March 31, 2008. 

14.4.4 Section 3.4 Noise and Vibration 

California High-Speed Rail Authority and Federal Railroad Administration. 2005. Final program 

environmental impact report/environmental impact statement (EIR/EIS) for the proposed California 

High-Speed Train System. August. Sacramento, CA. 

Miller, N.P. 2001. Effects of military overflights on recreational users of national parks. Inter-Noise 2001. 

The 2001 International Congress and Exhibition on Noise Control Engineering. The Hague, Holland. 

August 27–30. 

U.S. Department of Transportation. 1998. Title 23: Highways – Part 772 procedures for abatement of 

highway traffic noise and construction noise. 

———. 2005. High-speed ground transportation noise and vibration assessment. Federal Railroad 

Administration, October 2005. 

———. 2006. Transit noise and vibration assessment, Federal Transit Administration. May. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 14 Sources Used in Document Preparation 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 14-6

14.4.5 Section 3.5 Energy 

California Energy Commission (CEC). 1990. Energy efficiency report. Sacramento, CA. 

———. 1999. Fuels report (Commission Final—P300-99-001). July. 

———. 2000. California energy demand 2000 – 2010 (Staff Report – Technical Report to California 

Energy Outlook 2000 Docket #99-CEO-1). 

———. 2002. California energy facts. Available: <http://www.energy.ca.gov/html/calif_ 

energy_facts.html.> Accessed: November 21, 2002. 

———. 2003. Glossary of terms. Available: <http://www.energy.ca.gov/glossary/glossary-m.html>. 

Accessed: March 3, 2003. 

———. 2004a. Integrated energy policy report 2004 update. Last revised: November 2004. Available: 

<http://energy.ca.gov/reports/CEC-100-2004-006/CEC-100-2004-006CMF.PDF>. Accessed: June 5, 

2007. 

———. 2004b. Upgrading California’s electric transmission system: Issues and actions for 2004 and 

beyond. Last revised: July 2004. Available: 

<http://energy.ca.gov/2004_policy_update/documents/2004-08-23_workshop/2004-07-30_100-04-

004D.PDF>. Accessed: June 5, 2007. Page 23. 

———. 2005a. Forecasts of California transportation energy demand 2005–2025 (Staff Report in support 

of 2005 Integrated Energy Policy Report). Last revised: April 2005. Available: 

<http://www.energy.ca.gov/2005publications/CEC-600-2005-009/CEC-600-2005-009.PDF>. 

Accessed: June 5, 2007. 

———. 2005b. Integrated energy policy report. Last revised: November 2005. Available: 

<http://www.energy.ca.gov/2005publications/CEC-100-2005-007/CEC-100-2005-007-CMF.PDF>. 

Accessed: June 5, 2007. 

———. 2005c. Strategic transmission investment plan. Available: 

<http://www.energy.ca.gov/2005publications/CEC-100-2005-006/CEC-100-2005-006-CTD.PDF>. 

Accessed: June 5, 2007. 

———. 2005d. California energy demand 2006–2016 staff energy demand forecast. Revised September 

2005. Available: <http://www.energy.ca.gov/2005publications/CEC-400-2005-034/CEC-400-2005-

034-SF.PDF>. Accessed: June 5, 2007. 

———. 2006a. California electricity consumption by sector (million kWh)*. Last revised: September 11, 

2006. Available: <http://www.energy.ca.gov/electricity/consumption_by_sector.html>. Accessed: 

June 5, 2007. 

———. 2006b. California natural gas demand 2005. Last revised: September 5, 2006. Available: 

<http://www.energy.ca.gov/naturalgas/statistics/natural_gas_demand.html>. Accessed: June 5, 

2007. 

———. 2006c. California's major sources of energy. Last revised: August 30, 2006. Available: 

<http://www.energy.ca.gov/html/energysources.html>. Accessed: June 5, 2007. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 14 Sources Used in Document Preparation 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 14-7

———. 2006d. Summer 2006 electricity supply and demand outlook, 6/29/06 revised demand. Last 

revised: April 2006. Available: <http://energy.ca.gov/2006publications/CEC-700-2006-005/CEC-700-

2006-005.PDF>. Accessed: June 5, 2007. 

———. 2006e. California’s energy future: Key drivers and issues in a global context. Presented by James 

D. Boyd, Commissioner and Vice Chair, California Energy Commission, to the California Clean Energy 

Roundtable in San Diego, California, December 6–8, 2006. Available: 

<http://www.energy.ca.gov/2006publications/CEC-999-2006-029/CEC-999-2006-029.PDF>. 

Accessed: May 29, 2007. 

California Energy Commission/California Public Utilities Commission. 2003. Natural gas market prices. 

Sacramento, CA. 

California State Department of Transportation. 1983. Congressional Budget Office in energy and 

transportation systems. Prepared for the Federal Highway Administration. Sacramento, CA. 

Cambridge Systematics. 2007. Bay Area/California High-Speed Rail ridership and revenue forecasting 

study: alternatives analysis. Prepared for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the 

California High-Speed Rail Authority. June. Oakland, CA. 

DE Consult. 2000. German peer review, report, phase I. Frankfurt am Main, Germany. December. 

Federal Highway Administration. 2005. A summary of highway provisions in SAFETEA-LU. Last revised: 

August 25, 2005. Available: <http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/safetealu/summary.htm>. Accessed: 

February 21, 2006. 

Federal Transit Authority, Office of Planning. 1999. Technical guidance on section 5309 new starts 

criteria. July. 

National Council on Electricity Policy. 2004. Electricity transmission: A primer. Last revised: June 2004. 

Available: 

<http://www.raponline.org/showpdf.asp?PDF_URL=%22Pubs/ELECTRICITYTRANSMISSION.pdf%22

>. Accessed: June 5, 2007. 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 2004. Automotive fuel economy program annual 

update—calendar year 2003. November. 

———. 2006. CAFE overview—frequently asked questions. 

Available: <http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/cafe/overview.htm>. Accessed: February 21, 2006. 

U.S. Congress, Budget Office. 1977. Urban transportation and energy: The potential savings of different 

modes. Washington D.C. 

———. 1982. Energy use in freight transportation. Staff working paper. Washington D.C. 

U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Planning, Budget Formulation and Analysis, Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy. 2006. Transportation energy data book: Edition 25. Prepared by Oak Ridge 

National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. 

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. 2007. Annual energy outlook 2007: with 

projections to 2030. Available: <http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/trend_4.pdf>. Accessed: June 

5, 2007. Washington, D.C. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 14 Sources Used in Document Preparation 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 14-8

14.4.6 Section 3.6 Electromagnetic Fields and Electromagnetic Interference 

Amtrak . 1993. Magnetic and electrical field testing of the Amtrak northeast corridor and New 

Jersey/North Jersey coast line rail systems, volume I: Analysis, DOT-VNTSC-FRA-93-4.1, NTIS, 

Springfield, VA. April. 

California High-Speed Rail Authority and Federal Railroad Administration. 2005. Final program 

environmental impact report/environmental impact statement (EIR/EIS) for the proposed California 

high-speed train system. Sacramento, CA. 

Federal Railroad Administration. 2006. EMF monitoring on Amtrak’s northeast corridor: Postelectrification measurement and analysis, DOT/FRA/RDV-06/01. October. 

Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers Standards Coordinating Committee 28, IEEE International 

Committee on Electromagnetic Safety on Non-Ionizing Radiation. 2002. IEEE Standard for 

safety levels with respect to human exposure to electromagnetic fields, 0-3 kHz (C95.6). No. 

IEEE Std C95.6-2002. New York: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. 43 p. 

International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), Working Group on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic 

Risks to Humans. 2002. IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans. 

Lyon, France: IARC Press. 429 p. 

National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences, C. J. Portier and M. S. Wolfe (eds.). 1998. 

Assessment of health effects from exposure to power-line frequency electric and magnetic fields. 

Research Triangle Park, NC: National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. 

———. 1999. Health effects from exposure to power-line frequency electric and magnetic fields: 

Prepared in response to the 1992 energy policy at (PL 102-486, section 2118). NIH Publication 

No. 99-4493. Research Triangle Park, NC: National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. 

Neutra, R. R., V. Delpizzo, and G. M. Lee. 2002. An evaluation of the possible risks from electric and 

magnetic fields (EMFs) from power lines, internal wiring, electrical occupations and appliances. 

Oakland, CA: California EMF Program, California Department of Health Services. 401 p. 

Severson R. K., R. G. Stevens, W. T. Kaune, D. B. Thomas, L. Heuser, S. Davis, and L. E. Sever. 1988. 

Acute nonlymphocytic leukemia and residential exposure to power frequency magnetic fields. 

Silva, J. M. et al. 1988. Power frequency magnetic fields in the home. No. 88 WM 101–8. Piscataway, 

NJ: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. 

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration. 2006. EMF monitoring on Amtrak's 

northeast corridor: post-electrification measurements and analysis. Final report. October. Office of 

Research and Development, Washington, DC. Available: 

<http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/RRdev/rdv0601.pdf>. 

14.4.7 Section 3.7 Land Use and Planning, Communities and Neighborhoods, Property, 

and Environmental Justice 

California Department of Finance. 2006. California department of finance. Available: 

<www.dof.ca.gov>. 

California High-Speed Train Program. 2006. Aerial plans. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 14 Sources Used in Document Preparation 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 14-9

City and County of San Francisco, General Plan, Adopted between August 1997 and June 1998. 

City of Fremont, General Plan, Adopted May 7, 1991. 

City of Gilroy, General Plan, June, 2002. 

City of Livermore, General Plan, Adopted 2004. 

City of Merced, Merced Vision 2015 General Plan, April 1997. 

City of Millbrae, General Plan, 1998 – 2015, Adopted November 24, 1998. 

City of Millbrae, Millbrae Station Area, Specific Plan, Adopted November 24, 1998. 

City of Modesto, Urban Area General Plan, Adopted 2003. 

City of Morgan Hill, General Plan, July, 2001. 

City of Oakland, Envision Oakland, General Plan / Land Use and Transportation Element, March, 1998. 

City of Palo Alto, Palo Alto 1998 – 2010 Comprehensive Plan, 1998. 

City of Pleasanton, General Plan, Adopted 1996. 

City of Redwood City, Strategic General Plan, Adopted January 22, 1990. 

City of San Jose, 2020 General Plan, Adopted August 16, 1994. 

City of Tracy, City of Tracy General Plan, Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 4,2005. 

City of Union City. 2002 General Plan Policy Document, February, 2003. 

County of Merced, Year 2000 General Plan, Adopted December 4, 1990. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. Census Data. 

14.4.8 Section 3.8 Agricultural Lands 

California Department of Food and Agriculture. 2005. California agriculture overview. In California 

Agricultural Resource Directory 2005. Available: 

<http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/card/pdfs/2cdfagovstat.pdf>. Accessed: October 20, 2006. 

California Division of Land Resource Protection. 2006. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program GIS 

Data 2006. Available: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/2006. Accessed October 2006.

Kuminoff, N. V., A. D. Sokolow, and D. A. Sumner. 2001. Farmland conversion: Perceptions and 

realities. Pages 1–2 in Agricultural Issues Center AIC Issues Brief. May 2001. 

14.4.9 Section 3.11 Hazardous Materials and Wastes 

Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR). 2003. Environmental geodata. January. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 14 Sources Used in Document Preparation 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 14-10

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2006. EPA region 9, site EPA ID# CAD009103318. 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2003. Office of solid waste and emergency 

response (OSWER) superfund website. Available: <http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/index.htm>. 

Accessed: February 2003. 

———. 2006. Office of solid waste and emergency response (OSWER) superfund website. Available: 

<http://www.epa.gov/region09/subject-sfund.html#j>. Accessed: October 2006. 

14.4.10 Section 3.12 Cultural Resources and Paleontological Resources 

Applied Earthworks. 2004. Sacramento to Bakersfield, cultural resources technical evaluation. January. In 

association with DMJM+HARRIS. Prepared for the California High-Speed Rail Authority and the 

Federal Railroad Administration for the California High-Speed Train Program EIR/EIS.

City and County of San Francisco Planning Department. 2004. San Francisco preservation bulletin no. 10, 

historic and conservation districts in San Francisco. San Francisco, CA. Available:< 

http://www.sfgov.org/site/planning_index.asp?id=24996>. 

EIP Associates. 2004. Sacramento to Bakersfield, paleontological resources technical evaluation. January. 

In association with DMJM+HARRIS. San Francisco and Sacramento, CA. Prepared for the California 

High-Speed Rail Authority and the Federal Railroad Administration for the California High-Speed Train 

Program EIR/EIS..

Far Western Anthropological Research Group. 2004. Bay Area to Merced, cultural resources, archeology, 

technical evaluation. January. Prepared for the California High-Speed Rail Authority and the Federal 

Railroad Administration for the California High-Speed Train Program EIR/EIS. 

JRP Historical Consulting Services. 2004. Bay Area to Merced, cultural resources: historic architecture 

technical evaluation. January. Davis, CA. for the California High-Speed Rail Authority and the Federal 

Railroad Administration for the California High-Speed Train Program EIR/EIS.

Parker, P. and T. King. 1990. Guidelines for evaluating and documenting traditional properties. National 

Register Bulletin (38). Washington, D.C. 

Parsons. 2004. Bay Area to Merced Segment, paleontologic resources technical evaluation. Prepared by 

C.B. Hanson and J. Durham for the California High-Speed Rail Authority and the Federal Railroad 

Administration for the California High-Speed Train Program EIR/EIS. 

URS. 2006. Transbay Transit Center Program, Addendum for the Transbay Terminal/Downtown 

Extension/Redevelopment Project. Final Environmental Impact Statement/Report. May 25. Rev. 0. 

Prepared for the Transbay Joint Powers Authority. Available: <http://www.transbaycenter.org/ 

TransBay/uploadedFiles/Documents/Environmental/FEIR-1st-Addendum.pdf.>

U.S. Geological Survey. 2006a. Geologic map of the San Francisco Bay Region (from USGS Scientific 

Investigations Map 2918). Available data for Alameda County, San Francisco County, San Mateo 

County, Santa Clara County, San Benito County: 

<http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/sfgeo/geologic/downloads.html>. Accessed: March 1, 2007. Prepared 

in cooperation with the California Geological Society. 

U.S. Geological Survey. 2006b. San Jose—Cenozoic (mammal-age) fossil (mammoth). Last revised: 

August 18, 2006. Available: 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 14 Sources Used in Document Preparation 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 14-11

<http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/sfgeo/geologic/stories/sanjose_cenozoic.html>. Accessed: March 1, 

2007. 

14.4.11 Section 3.13 Geology and Soils 

Bailey, E. H., and D. R. Harden. 1975. Map showing mineral resources of the San Francisco Bay Region, 

California – Present availability and planning for the future. USGS Map I-909. 

California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources. N.D. District 5 

fields map. 

———. 2001a. District 1 oil fields. April 16. 

———. 2001b. 

California Geological Survey. 1999. Seismic shaking hazard maps of California. Available: 

<http://www.consrv.ca.gov>. Accessed: Is this also “State of California. 1999” (see page 3.13-2 in 

text). 

Hart, E. W., and W. A. Bryant. 1997. Fault rupture hazard zones in California. California Geologic 

Survey, special publication 42. 2002 edition (GIS version). Available: 

<ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/sp/sp42.pdf>. Accessed: March 21, 2007. 

Jennings, C. W. 1997. Geologic map of California. California Division of Mines and Geology. Scale 

1:750,000. 

———. 1991. 

Lienkaemper, J. J. 1992. Map of recently active traces of the Hayward Fault, Alameda and Contra Costa 

Counties, California. USGS Map MF-2196. 

Maulchin, L. 1996. California seismic hazard map. California Department of Transportation. 

Norris and Webb. 1990. 

State of California. 1999. <see California Geological Survey. 

14.4.12 Section 3.14 Hydrology and Water Resources 

California Department of Water Resources. 2005. California water plan update 2005: volume 3, 

chapter 3 San Francisco Bay hydrologic region. (Bulletin 160-05). December. Sacramento, CA. Also 

available: <http://www.waterplan.water.ca.gov/docs/cwpu2005/vol3/v3ch03.pdf>. (pages 3-1, 3-3, 

3-4, and 3-9) 

California Department of Water Resources, Division of Mines and Geology. 2000. Available: 

http://gis.ca.gov/catalog/BrowseRecord.epl?id=20843. Accessed February 2007. 

DeLorme. 2003. Northern California atlas & gazetteer: Detailed topographic maps. 6th Edition. 

Yarmouth, Maine: DeLorme. 

DeLorme. 2003. Southern and Central California atlas & gazetteer: Detailed topographic maps. 7th 

Edition. Yarmouth, Maine: DeLorme. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 14 Sources Used in Document Preparation 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 14-12

Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2007. FEMA 100 year flood data. Available: 

<http://gis.ca.gov/catalog/BrowseRecord.epl?id=21109>. Accessed: January 2007. 

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB). 

2003. CWA section 303(d) list 2002. Last revised: November 6, 2003. Available: 

<http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/tmdl/303d_lists2002.html>. Accessed: January 2007. 

———. 2006. CWA section 303(d) list 2006. Last revised: November 7, 2006. Available: <http:// 

www.swrcb.ca.gov/tmdl/docs/303dlists2006/final/>. Accessed: January 2007. 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Region, MPGIS Service Center. 2005. Canal24ca—canals for 

California USBR at 1:24,000-scale. Last revised: May 2005. Available: 

<http://gis.ca.gov/catalog/BrowseRecord.epl?id=29583>. Accessed: March 2007. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Soil data mart. 

Available: <http://SoilDataMart.nrcs.usda.gov/>. Accessed: February 2007. 

U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ESRI. 2006. ESRI. 

Redlands, CA. 

14.4.13 Section 3.15 Biological Resources and Wetlands 

California Department of Fish and Game. 2006. California’s wildlife. Last revised: February 2006. 

Available: <www.dfg.ca.gov/whdab/html/cawildlife.html>. Accessed: January 19, 2007. 

———. 2001. Special animal list. 

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 1994. California hardwood rangeland vegetation. 

Sacramento, CA. 

———. 2003a. Development footprint. 3.1. Sacramento, CA. 

———. 2003b. LCMMP, vegetation data. Sacramento, CA. 

California Native Plant Society. 2001. Inventory of rare and endangered plants. 6th Edition. 

California Natural Diversity Database. 2006. Records search of Alameda County, Merced County, San 

Benito County, San Francisco County, San Joaquin County, Santa Clara County, and Stanislaus 

County. Version 3.0.5 dated September 1, 2006. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Fish and 

Game. 

California Wilderness Coalition. 2000. Missing linkages: Restoring connectivity to the California 

landscape. November. San Diego Zoo, San Diego, CA. 

Davis, F. W., D. M. Stoms, A. D. Hollander, K. A. Thomas, P. A. Stine, D. Odion, M. I. Borchert, J. H. 

Thorne, M. V. Gray, R. E. Walker, K. Warner, and J. Graae. 1998. The California gap analysis 

project—final report. Santa Barbara, CA: University of California, Santa Barbara. 

East Contra Costa County. Habitat conservation plan association. 2005. 

California Department of Fish and Game. 1997. California Central Valley wetlands and riparian GIS. 

Sacramento, CA. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 14 Sources Used in Document Preparation 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 14-13

Hickman, J. C. (ed.). 1993. The Jepson manual: Higher plants of California. Berkeley, CA: University 

of California Press.

Holland, R. 1986. Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of California. 

Sacramento, CA: California Department of Fish and Game.

National Invasive Species Council. 2001. Meeting the invasive species challenge: National invasive 

species management plan. 80 pp. 

Parker, I., and K. Matyas. 1979. CALVEG: A classification of California vegetation. Regional Ecology 

Group. Sacramento, CA. Prepared for the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 

San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. 2006. Available: 

<http://www.bcdc.gov>. Accessed: February 15, 2006. 

San Francisco Estuary Institute. 1998. SFEI: EcoAtlas Home. Last revised: 2005. Available: 

<http://www.sfei.org/ecoatlas/index.html>. Accessed: 4/24/2007. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. Recovery plan for the San Bruno elfin and mission blue butterflies. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 

———. 1985. San Francisco garter snake recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 

———. 1998a. Recovery plan for upland species of the San Joaquin Valley, California. Portland, OR. 

———. 1998b. Recovery plan for serpentine soil species. 

———. 1999. Conservation guidelines for the valley elderberry longhorn beetle. July 9. Sacramento, 

CA: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services Office. 

———. 2002a. Recovery plan for the California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii). Portland, OR. 

———. 2002b. Draft recovery plan for chaparral and scrub community species east of San Francisco 

Bay, California. Portland, OR. 

———. 2005. Recovery plan for vernal pool ecosystems of California and southern Oregon. 

Portland, OR. 

14.4.14 Section 3.16 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources (Public Parks and Recreation) 

Federal Highway Administration. 1987. 

14.4.15 Section 3.17 Cumulative Analysis 

Cal/EPA. 2005. Addendum to 2004 EPIC Update. September. Available: 

<http://www.oehha.ca.gov/multimedia/epic/pdf/ADDENDUM-June2005complete.pdf>. 

Accessed: June 4, 2007. 

California Department of Fish and Game. 2006. California wildlife action plan. Available: 

<http://www.dfg.ca.gov/habitats/WDP/report.html>. Accessed: June 15, 2007. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 14 Sources Used in Document Preparation 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 14-14

California Department of Food and Agriculture. 2005. California agriculture overview. In California 

Agricultural Resource Directory 2005. Available: 

<http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/card/pdfs/2cdfagovstat.pdf>. Accessed: October 20, 2006. 

California Department of Transportation. 2006. California Motor Vehicle Stock, Travel and Fuel 

Forecast. December. Caltrans, Division of Transportation System Information. 

———. 2007. State highway miles and vehicle miles traveled data summary 1990-2003. Available: 

<http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tsip/tsidoc/shwydata/SummaryMilesVMT1990_2003.xlx>. Accessed: 

June 15, 2007. 

———. 2007. Memorandum, Route Adoption, 10-MER-152 PM 16.0/24.8 Resolution HRA 07-03l 

November 7-8, 2007.California Department of Water Resources. 2003. California’s 

groundwater—Bulletin 118, update 2003. Available: 

<http://www.dpla2.water.ca.gov/publications/groundwater/bulletin118/Bulletin118-

Findings.pdf>. Accessed: June 8, 2007. 

———. 2005. California waterplan highlights, a framework for action, bulletin 160-5. December. 

Available: <http://www.waterplan.water.ca.gov/docs/cwpu2005/cwphighlights/highlights.pdf>. 

Accessed: June 5, 2007. 

California Energy Commission (CEC). 2006a. California Electricity consumption by sector (million kWh)*. 

Last revised: September 11, 2006. Available: 

<http://www.energy.ca.gov/electricity/consumption_by_sector.html>. Accessed: June 5, 2007. 

California High-Speed Rail Authority and Federal Railroad Administration. 2005. Final program 

environmental impact report/environmental impact statement (EIR/EIS) for the proposed 

California high-speed train system. Sacramento, CA. 

California Resources Agency, Wetlands Information System. 1998a. California’s valuable wetlands. Last 

revised: August 13, 1998. Available: <http://ceres.ca.gov/wetlands/introduction/values.html>. 

Accessed: June 15, 2007. 

———. 1998b. Past management practices. Last revised: August 18, 1998. Available: 

<http://ceres.ca.gov/wetlands/introduction/values.html>. Accessed: June 15, 2007. 

Great Valley Center. 2006. The state of the great Central Valley of California. Available: 

<http://www.greatvalley.org/pub_documents/2005_12_19_15_42_31_2005_12_5_12_1_29_200

5_environment.pdf> . Accessed: June 8, 2007. 

Hansen, M., G. Gosling, T. Kettunen, and E. Wilkins. 2002. The California aviation system: Current 

status and report trends. Berkeley, CA: University of California Berkeley Institute of 

Transportation Studies. 

Kuminoff, N. V., A. D. Sokolow, and D. A. Sumner. 2001. Farmland conversion: Perceptions and 

realities. Pages 1–2 in Agricultural Issues Center AIC Issues Brief. May 2001. 

Metropolitan Transportation Commission. 2004. Transportation 2030 plan draft environmental impact 

report. October . Available: 

<http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/2030_plan/downloads/EIR/Part1.pdf>. Accessed: June 2, 

2007. 

———. 2007. Regional Rail Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area. Final Report. September 2007. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 14 Sources Used in Document Preparation 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 14-15

Penrod, K., R. Hunter, and M. Merrifield. 2001. Missing linkages: Restoring connectivity to the California 

landscape, conference proceedings. Co-sponsored by the California Wilderness Coalition, The 

Nature Conservancy, U.S. Geological Survey, Center for Reproduction of Endangered Species, 

and California State Parks. 

State Water Resources Control Board. 2003. Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. July. 

Available: <http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb5/board_information/Overview.html>. Accessed: 

June 2, 2007. 

———. 2006. CWA section 303(d) list 2006. Last revised: November 7, 2006. Available: <http:// 

www.swrcb.ca.gov/tmdl/docs/303dlists2006/final/>. Accessed: January 2007. 

Teitz, M. B., C. Dietzel, and W. Fullton. 2005. Urban development futures in the San Joaquin Valley. 

Available: <http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_205MTR.pdf>. Accessed: June 8, 2007. 

U.S. Geological Survey. 2006. Access—San Francisco Bay and Delta. Last revised: December 27, 2006. 

Available: <http://sfbay.wr.usgs.gov/>. Accessed: June 15, 2007. 

14.5 Chapter 4 Costs and Operations 

California High-Speed Rail Authority and Federal Railroad Administration. 2005. Final Program 

environmental impact report/environmental impact statement (EIR/EIS) for the proposed 

California high-speed train system. Sacramento, CA. 

Cambridge Systematics. 2007. Bay Area/California High-Speed Rail ridership and revenue forecasting 

study: alternatives analysis. Prepared for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the 

California High-Speed Rail Authority. June. Oakland, CA.

McGraw-Hill Construction ENR. 2007. Construction Index History. In Engineering News Record 

(ENR.com). Last revised: April 1, 2007. Available:< http://enr.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0271-

38667_ITM>. 

Parsons-Brinckerhoff. 2004. Capital cost report. January. 

14.6 Chapter 5 Economic Growth and Related Impacts 

California High-Speed Rail Authority. 2003. Economic growth effects of the system alternatives for the 

program environmental impact report/environmental impact statement. Sacramento, CA. 

California Department of Housing and Community Development. May 2000. Exhibit 17 (Raising the roof: 

California housing development projectsions and constraints) 

Cambridge Systematics. 2007. MTC/California High-Speed Rail Travel Demand Model (ouput). 

Cambridge Systematics. 2007. Bay Area/California High-Speed Rail ridership and revenue forecasting 

study: final report. Prepared for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the California 

High-Speed Rail Authority. July. 

U.S. Bureau of the Census. 2007. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 14 Sources Used in Document Preparation 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 14-16

14.7 Chapter 6 HST Station Area Development 

None 

14.8 Chapter 7 High-Speed Train Network and Alignment Alternatives 

Comparisons 

California High-Speed Rail Authority and Federal Railroad Administration. 2005. November. Final 

program environmental impact report/environmental impact statement (EIR/EIS) for the proposed 

California high-speed train system. 

14.9 Chapter 8 Preferred HST Alignment and Station Location Options 

CWA. 2006. 2006 Federal Agency MOU for the Bay Area to Central Valley HST Program EIR/EIS. 

14.10 Chapter 9 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts 

California High-Speed Rail Authority. 2000. High-Speed Train System Business Plan. Sacramento, CA. 

14.11 Chapter 10 Public and Agency Involvement 

California High Speed Rail Authority and Federal Railroad Administration. 2006. January 20.Bay Area to 

Central Valley scoping report. 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 15-1

15 GLOSSARY 

A 

Abatement: Reduction; often used to describe mitigation of noise. 

Accessibility: The ease with which a site or facility may be reached by passengers and others 

necessary to the facility’s intended function. Also, the extent to which a facility is usable by 

persons with disabilities, including wheelchair users. 

Action Alternative: An alternative that represents the proposed action or another alternative action, as 

contrasted to the No Action (No Project) Alternative. 

Adverse: Negative or detrimental. 

Affected Environment: The physical, biological, social, and economic setting potentially affected by 

one or more of the alternatives being considered. 

Air Pollution: A general term that refers to one or more chemical substances that degrade the quality 

of the atmosphere. 

Alignment: The horizontal and vertical general location for HST tracks within study corridors. 

Alignment Alternatives: The general location for HST tracks, structures and systems for the HST 

system between logical points within study corridors. 

Alluvium: Sedimentary materials deposited by running water. 

Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act: California law passed in 1972 to prevent construction 

of buildings used for human occupancy on surface traces of active faults. 

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): Federal regulation establishing legal requirements for 

accessibility. 

Amplitude: The magnitude of a periodic wave; also describes the strength or intensity of a signal that 

travels in wave form, such as a radio signal. 

Aquifer: Subsurface geologic unit (rock or sediment) that contains and transmits groundwater. 

Arc, Arcing: Electrical discharge is said to arc when it jumps across the space between two contacts. 

At Grade: At ground surface level; a term used to describe roadways, river crossings, and track 

alignments. 

Attainment: An air basin is considered to be in attainment for a particular pollutant if it meets the 

federal or state standards set for that pollutant. See also Maintenance, Nonattainment. 

A-Weighted Sound Level: A measure of sound intensity that is weighted to approximate the response 

of the human ear, so it describes the way sound will affect people in the vicinity of a noise 

source. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 15 Glossary 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 15-2

B 

Baseline: Foundation or basis to use for comparison purposes. 

Beneficial Visual Impact: Impact resulting if a project alternative eliminates a dominant feature that 

currently detracts from scenic qualities or blocks vistas in the landscape. 

BNSF: BNSF Railway Company. 

BTU: British Thermal Unit, equal to the amount of heat required to raise 1 pound of water 1 degree 

Fahrenheit at 1 atmosphere of pressure. 

Buttressing: An action or structure that provides support or stability. 

C 

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): “Legislation enacted in 1970 to protect the quality of 

the environment for the people of California by requiring public agencies and decision-makers to 

document and consider the environmental consequences of their actions. CEQA is the state 

equivalent of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).” 

Capital Cost: The total cost of acquiring an asset or constructing a project. 

Capitol Corridor: An existing intercity rail alignment approximating the I-80 corridor; carries freight 

traffic, long distance Amtrak service, and intrastate “Capitol” service. 

Carbon Dioxide (CO2): A colorless, odorless gas that occurs naturally in the earth’s atmosphere; 

significant quantities are also emitted into the air by fossil fuel combustion. 

Carbon Monoxide (CO): A colorless, odorless gas that is generated in the urban environment, 

primarily by the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels in motor vehicles. 

Catenary Wire: A suspended (overhead) wire system that supplies power from a central power source 

to an electric vehicle such as a train. 

Class I Trail: A trail in a separate right-of-way designated for exclusive use by bicycles and pedestrians, 

with cross traffic by motorists minimized. 

Class II Trail: A trail in a restricted right-of-way designated for semiexclusive use by bicycles, with 

traffic by motor vehicles or pedestrians at crossings. 

Class III Trail: A trail located in a right-of-way designated by signs or permanent markings and shared 

with pedestrians and motorists. 

Cofferdam: Watertight enclosure from which water is pumped to expose the bottom of a body of water 

and permit construction. 

Community Cohesion: The degree to which residents have a sense of belonging to their 

neighborhood, a commitment to the community, or a strong attachment to neighbors, groups, 

and institutions, usually as a result of continued association over time. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 15 Glossary 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 15-3

Community Noise Equivalent Level: A 24-hour Leq that has been adjusted to add a “penalty” of 5 

dBA for evening noise (between 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m.) and 10 dBA for nighttime noise 

(between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.). 

Congestion Management Plan: A planning document that addresses strategies for reducing traffic 

congestion. 

Connectivity: Describes the degree of “connectedness” of a transportation system, such as a transit 

network, and the ease with which passengers can move from one point to another within the 

network or points outside the network. 

Conservation Easement: An easement created by transferring development rights over a property 

from a farmer to another entity, such as the local jurisdiction or an agricultural protection 

organization; the land remains in private ownership and may be farmed, but may not be 

developed with urban uses. See also Easement. 

Cooperating agency: Under NEPA, any agency other than the lead agency that has legal jurisdiction 

over, or technical expertise regarding, environmental impacts associated with a proposed action 

and has agreed to participate. 

Construction: Any activity related to building projects, including highways or HST infrastructure (e.g., 

track, stations, tunnels, bridges) that directly alters the environment. 

Corridor: A geographic belt or band that follows the general route of a transportation facility (highway, 

railroad, etc). See also Study corridors.

Criteria Pollutants: Refers to pollutants for which federal and state air quality standards have been 

established: carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur oxides (SOx), nitrogen oxides (NOx), ozone (O3), 

particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less (PM10), particulate matter with a 

diameter of 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5), and lead (Pb). 

Cultural Resources: Resources related to the tangible and intangible aspects of cultural systems, living 

and dead, that are valued by a given culture or contain information about the culture. These 

include (i.e., are not limited to) sites, structures, buildings, districts, and objects associated with 

or representative of people, cultures, and human activities and events. 

Cumulative Impact: (1) As defined by CEQA, the result of two or more individual impacts which, when 

considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental 

impacts. (2) As defined by NEPA, and impact on the environment that results from the 

incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions. 

Cut and Cover: Construction technique in which a trench is excavated, infrastructure is installed, and 

the trench is closed. 

Cut and Fill: Construction technique involving excavation or grading followed by placement and 

compaction of fill material. 

Cut Slope: A slope that is shaped by excavation or grading. See also Fill slope. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 15 Glossary 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 15-4

D 

Decibel (dB): A logarithmic measurement of noise intensity. 

Densification: The process of making an element more compact by reducing air space.

Dewatering: The process of removing water from an area or substance, such as fill material. 

Disturbance: A discrete event, either natural or human induced, that causes a change in the condition 

of an ecological system. 

E 

Easement: An interest in land owned by another individual or organization that entitles its holder to a 

specific limited use.

Ecosystem: A system formed by the interaction of living organisms, including people, with their 

environment. 

Electromagnetic Field (EMF): The force field that extends outward from any moving electrical 

current, consisting of both a magnetic field and an electric field. 

Electromagnetic Interference (EMI): An electrical emission or disturbance that causes degradation 

in performance or results in malfunctions of electrical or electronic equipment, devices, or 

systems. 

Emergent: (1) Arising naturally or (2) of vegetation, rooted in periodically or continuously inundated 

substrate, but with a portion of the plant extending above the water. 

Eminent Domain: A jurisdiction or agency’s legal right to take private property for public use in 

exchange for fair compensation. 

Emission and Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS): Modeling system used by the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) to estimate airplane emissions generated from a specified number of 

landing and take-off (LTO) cycles. 

Endangered Species: Species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act as being in danger of or 

threatened with extinction throughout all or most of its range. 

Enplanement: The act of boarding an airplane. 

Environmental Impact Report (EIR): A detailed informational document that analyzes a project’s 

potential significant effects and identifies mitigation measures and reasonable alternatives to 

avoid the significant effects. This document is part of the CEQA environmental review process.

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS): A detailed informational document that analyzes a 

project’s potential significant effects and identifies mitigation measures and reasonable 

alternatives to avoid the significant effects. This document is part of the NEPA environmental 

review process. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 15 Glossary 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 15-5

Environmental Justice: Identifying and addressing the potential for disproportionately high and 

adverse effects of programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income 

populations. 

Erosion: Process by which earth materials are worn down by the action of flowing water, ice, or wind. 

Ethnicity: A grouping or category of people based on shared cultural traits, such as ancestral origin, 

language, custom, or social attitude. 

F 

Farmland of Local Importance: Farmlands that are important to the local agricultural community, as 

determined by each county’s board of supervisors and local advisory committee. See also 

Farmland of Statewide Importance, Prime Farmland. 

Farmland of Statewide Importance: Farmlands similar to prime farmlands but that have been 

evaluated as less valuable because they have steeper slopes, less ability to retain moisture in the 

soil, or other characteristics that limit their use. To qualify as farmland of statewide importance, 

a property must have been used for production of irrigated crops at some time during the 

previous 4 years. 

Farmland Severance: Because agricultural land usually consists of large parcels, the acquisition of part 

of a property results in the severance (disconnection) of land retained under agricultural use and 

in impacts associated with construction and with occupation or use of developed areas. 

Fault: A fracture in the earth’s lithosphere (brittle rocky shell) along which movement has occurred. 

Feasible: Capable of being implemented. 

Fill Slope: A slope shaped by the placement and compaction of loose “fill” materials, which may be 

reused from elsewhere on the construction site, or imported. 

Fiscally or Financially Constrained Plans: Plans that are limited by the foreseen availability of 

project funding in a region. 

Flyover: A bridge that carries one road or rail alignment aerially over another. 

Footprint: Area of the ground surface covered by a facility or affected by construction activities. 

Freeway Deficiency Plans: Freeway Deficiency Plans contain the following components: an analysis of 

the causes of the deficiency; a list of improvements that would have to be made to remedy the 

deficiency, including cost estimates; a list of proposed improvements; and an implementation 

plan including a schedule. 

Frequency: The number of times a field, such as an electromagnetic field, changes direction in space 

each second. Also, the number of trains, flights, or other transportation service occurring in a 

given time period. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 15 Glossary 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 15-6

G 

G Force: A force whose magnitude is equal to the gravitational force acting on a body at sea level, 

expressed as 1.0g. 

Gauss: Unit of measure describing the strength of a magnetic field. Near the surface of the earth, the 

earth’s magnetic field measures approximately 0.5 gauss (0.1 Telsa). See also Tesla. 

General Plan: A planning document, usually at the city or county level, that encapsulates policies for 

land use and development over a specified period of time. A general plan may be supplemented 

by specific plans that address land use and development policies for specific portions of a 

planning jurisdiction, such as historic districts or areas slated for redevelopment. 

Geographic Information System (GIS): An information management system designed to store and 

analyze data referenced by spatial or geographic coordinates. 

Giga: Prefix meaning 1 billion. 

Grade Crossing: The intersection of a railroad and a highway at the same elevation (grade); an 

intersection of two or more highways; an intersection of two railroads. 

Grade-Separated: At different elevations; on separate levels. 

Greenhouse Gases: A class of air pollutants believed to contribute to the “greenhouse” global warming 

effect, including nitrogen oxides (NOx), hydrocarbons (HC), and carbon dioxide (CO2). 

Grid: A system of interconnected power generators and power transmission lines that is managed to 

meet the requirements of energy users connected to the grid at various points. 

Groundwater: Water contained and transmitted through open spaces in rock and sediment below the 

ground surface. 

Growth Inducement: Contribution to the rate or extent of development in an area. 

H 

Habitat: An environment where plants or animals naturally occur; an ecological setting used by animals 

for a particular purpose, such as roosting or breeding. 

Headway: The time between buses, trains, or other transit vehicles at a given point. For example, a 

15-minute headway means that one bus arrives every 15 minutes. 

Herbaceous: Describes plants that have little or no woody tissue. Herbaceous plants typically survive 

for only a single growing season. 

Heritage Resources: An alternate term for cultural resources used in some planning documents. See

Cultural Resources. 

Hertz: A unit of measure describing frequency; equal to cycles (number of reversals) per second. 

High-Speed Steel-Wheel-on-Steel-Rail Train: An improvement of traditional railroad passenger 

technology that has been designed to operate at speeds of 100–150 mph (160–240 kph) on 

existing rail infrastructure. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 15 Glossary 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 15-7

High-Speed Train (HST): A train designed to operate safely and reliably at speeds near 200 mph (350 

kph). 

High Visual Impact: Impact sustained if features of a project alternative are very obvious, such that 

they begin to dominate the landscape and detract from the existing landscape characteristics or 

scenic qualities. 

HST Alignment Alternatives: General location for HST tracks, structures and systems for the HST 

system between logical points within study corridors; they are generally configured along or 

adjacent to existing rail transportation facilities. These HST Alignment alternatives are described 

in Chapter 2, analyzed in Chapter 3, compared and used to create HST Networks in Chapter 7. 

HST Network Alternatives: Represent different ways to implement the HST system in the study region 

with combinations of HST Alignment Alternatives and station location options. These HST 

Network alternatives are identified in Chapter 2 and compared in Chapter 7. 

HST Alignment Segment: A portion of alignment (often defined to distinguish sub-alternatives) that 

can be combined with other segments to form an alignment. 

Hydrocarbons: A wide variety of organic compounds, including methane (CH4), emitted principally from 

the storage, handling, and combustion of fossil fuels. 

I 

Impact: A change in the condition or function or an environmental resource or environmental value as 

a result of human activity. Also called effect. 

In Lieu Of: Instead of or in place of. 

Indigenous Species: A native species; any plant or animal species that occurs naturally in a wilderness 

area and was not introduced, deliberately or accidentally, by humans. 

Infrastructure: The facilities required for a societal function or service (e.g., transportation 

infrastructure, utilities infrastructure). 

Initial Study: An environmental study carried out in compliance with CEQA, with the goal of evaluating 

whether a proposed project has the potential to result in significant impacts on the environment. 

Insertion Loss: The actual noise-level reduction at a specific receiver due to construction of a noise 

barrier or some other intervention between the noise source (e.g., traffic) and the receiver. 

In-Situ: In the original or natural position. 

Intermodal: Describes transportation that involves more than one means (e.g., walk, bike, auto, 

transit, taxi, train, bus, air) during a single journey. 

Investment-Grade Ridership Forecast: Ridership forecast that is sufficiently detailed and reliable to 

permit responsible decision-making about capital expenditures. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 15 Glossary 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 15-8

J 

K 

Kilo: Prefix meaning 1 thousand. 

L 

Landslide: Movement of earth or rock materials downslope under the influence of gravity. 

Land Use Compatibility Assessment: An assessment of the compatibility of a proposed project or 

land use with existing and projected land uses in nearby areas, based on the sensitivity of 

various land uses to change related to the alternatives and the impact of these changes on the 

land use. 

Lead (Pb): A stable element that persists and accumulates both in the environment and in humans and 

animals and can have toxic effects. 

Lead Agency: The public agency that has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a 

project or action and is thus responsible for preparing environmental review documents in 

compliance with CEQA and/or NEPA. 

Leq: A measure of the average noise level during a specified period of time. 

Leq(h), dBA: Equivalent or average noise level for the noisiest hour, expressed in A-weighted decibels. 

See also A-Weighted Sound Level. 

Less Than Significant: In CEQA usage, describes an impact that is not sufficiently adverse, intense, or 

prolonged to require mitigation. 

Level of Service (LOS): A rating using qualitative measures that characterizes operational conditions 

within a traffic stream and the perception by motorists and passengers of these conditions. 

Liquefaction: A type of ground failure in which soils or sediments lose their internal cohesion, cease to 

behave as a solid, and flow like a liquid. 

Logarithmic Scale: A measurement in which the ratio of successive intervals is not equal to 1 (which is 

typical for linear scales) but is some common factor larger than the previous interval (a typical 

ratio is 10, so that the marks on the scale read 1, 10, 100, 1000, 10000, etc.). Logarithmic 

scales are useful for graphing values that have a very large range. 

Low Visual Impact: Impact sustained if features of a project alternative are consistent with the 

existing line, form, texture, and color of other elements in the landscape and do not stand out. 

M 

Mainline: A principal highway or railroad, exclusive of connectors, ramps, spurs, etc. 

Maintenance: An air basin is considered to be in maintenance for a given pollutant if it was formerly in 

nonattainment but is now meeting the established standards for that pollutant. See also 

Attainment, Nonattainment. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 15 Glossary 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 15-9

Major Investment Study (MIS): A study that evaluates project alternatives for their ability to solve 

an area’s transportation problems. 

Master Plan: A comprehensive planning document intended to guide the long-range growth and 

development of a community or region, or the long-term management and use of a parkland. 

Measure M: Approved by Orange County voters in November 1990, Measure M instituted a sales tax of 

0.5 cent for countywide transportation improvements. 

Mean High-Water Mark: The elevation reached by the water surface at the mean (average) high 

water level (average high-tide elevation or average flood elevation), often indicated by physical 

characteristics, such as erosion, lines of vegetation, or changes in type of vegetation. 

Medium Visual Impact: Impacts sustained if features of a project alternative are readily discernable 

but do not dominate the landscape or detract from existing dominant features. 

Microscale: Description of local air quality analysis. 

Midden: Refuse accumulation associated with prehistoric use of a site or area. 

Mitigation: Action or measure undertaken to minimize, reduce, eliminate, or rectify the adverse impacts 

of a project, practice, action, or activity. 

Monitoring: The collection of information to determine the effects of resource management and to 

identify changing resource conditions or needs. 

Monoculture: The cultivation of a single product to the exclusion of other uses of land. 

N 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS): Federal standards stipulating the allowable 

ambient concentrations of specific criteria pollutants. 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): “Federal legislation requiring federal agencies to 

consider the environmental impacts of major federal projects or decisions, to share information 

with the public, to identify and assess reasonable alternatives, and to coordinate efforts with 

other planning and environmental reviews taking place.” 

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx): A class of pollutant compounds that include nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and nitric 

oxide (NO), both of which are emitted by motor vehicles. See Criteria Pollutants. 

No Action: Under NEPA, refers to an alternative under which no action would be taken (no 

infrastructure would be built and no new management or operational practices would be 

instituted). See No Project. 

No Project: Under CEQA, refers to an alternative under which no action would be taken (no 

infrastructure would be built and no new management or operational practices would be 

instituted). See No Action. 

No Project Alternative: Represents the region’s (and state’s) transportation system (highway, air, and 

conventional rail) as it is today and with implementation of programs or projects that are in 

regional transportation plans and have identified funds for implementation by 2030. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 15 Glossary 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 15-10

Nonattainment: An air basin is considered to be in nonattainment for a particular pollutant if it is 

exceeding federal or state standards for that pollutant. See also Attainment, Maintenance. 

Non-Electrified Steel-Wheel-on-Steel-Rail Train: Conventional intercity diesel locomotive train 

equipment (e.g., Amtrak California Corridor trains). 

Nonpoint Source Pollution: Pollution that cannot be traced to a single source but collects from a wide 

area. Examples include pesticides or fertilizers that wash into rivers or percolate through the soil 

into groundwater. 

Non-Water-Contact Recreation: Recreational activities where contact with the water is not likely, 

such as photography and wildlife viewing. 

Notice of Intent (NOI): Formal notice stating that an environmental impact statement will be 

prepared for a proposed project; published in the Federal Register by the federal lead agency. 

Notice of Preparation (NOP): Formal notice stating that an environmental impact report will be 

prepared for a proposed project, issued by the state lead agency. 

Noxious Weed: A plant that has been defined as a pest by law or regulation. Both the State of 

California and the federal government maintain lists of plants that are considered threats to the 

well-being of the state or the country. 

NPL/Superfund List: Federal list of sites that have been identified as posing an immediate public 

health hazard and where an immediate response is necessary. 

O 

Ordinary High-Water Mark: The line on the shore of a body of water established by the fluctuation of 

water. 

Ozone (O3): A photochemical oxidant that is a major cause of lung and eye irritation in urban 

environments. 

P 

Paleontological: Related to the study of life in past geologic time.

Pantograph: A device on the roof of the HST for collecting current from an overhead wire, consisting of 

a hinged vertical arm operated by springs and hydraulic mechanism with a wide, horizontal 

contact surface that slides along the wire. 

Particulate Matter: Liquid and solid particles of a wide range of sizes and compositions; of particular 

concern for air quality are particles smaller than or equal to 10 microns and 2.5 microns (PM10 

and PM2.5 respectively). 

Point Source Pollution: Pollution that can be traced to a single source. An example is a smokestack 

at a factory. 

Poverty Level: A federally established income guideline used to define persons who are economically 

disadvantaged. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 15 Glossary 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 15-11

Practicable: Available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing 

technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes. 

Preferred Alternative: The alternative identified as preferred by the lead agencies. 

Program-Level: Refers to a CEQA or NEPA environmental review that covers the broad spectrum of a 

large, complex, regionally extensive effort comprised of a number of smaller, regionally focused 

projects or phases. 

Project-Level: Refers to more detailed site-specific environmental analysis focusing on a single project 

that is part of a larger program. 

Prime Farmland: Rural land that has the best combination of physical and soil chemistry characteristics 

for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops, and is available for these uses. 

Public Transportation: Includes bus, trolley bus, streetcar or trolley car, subway or elevated, railroad, 

ferryboat, and taxicab service. 

Purpose and Need: The reason(s) why a project or action is undertaken, and the need(s) it is intended 

to meet or fulfill. 

Q 

R 

Radio Frequency: The frequency range of the electromagnetic spectrum that is used for radio 

communication. 

Reactive Organic Gases (ROG): Reactive hydrocarbon pollutants. 

Regional Transportation Improvement Plan (RTIP): A listing of all transportation projects 

proposed over a six-year period for a given region. The RTIP is prepared to implement projects 

and programs listed in the Regional Transportation Plan and is developed in compliance with 

state and federal requirements. 

Regional Transportation Plan (RTP): A long-range (20+ year) transportation plan. The regional 

transportation plan (RTP) identifies major challenges as well as potential opportunities associated 

with growth, transportation finances, the future of airports in the region, and impending 

transportation system deficiencies that could result from growth anticipated in the region. There 

are typically two components of the RTP: a financially constrained and financially unconstrained 

version. The financially constrained version of the RTP includes projects and programs that fit 

within existing and planned funding sources. 

Representative Demand: For this Program EIR/EIS, the higher ridership forecast of 117 million 

intercity trips (based on the sensitivity analysis described in Chapter 1), which includes the 31 

million commute trips figure. Provides a reasonable representation of total capacity and serves as 

a representative worst-case scenario for analyzing the potential environmental impacts from 

construction and operation of the HST system through 2030. This higher forecast is generally 

used as a basis for defining the HST alternatives. 

Richter Scale: A logarithmic scale measuring the severity of earthquakes, based on the magnitude of 

ground motion. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 15 Glossary 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 15-12

Ridership: The number of people who ride a transportation system. 

Right-of-Way: A legal right of passage over a defined area of real property. In transit usage, right-ofway refers to the corridor along a roadway or track alignment that is controlled by a transit or 

transportation agency/authority. 

Riparian: Relating to, living, or located on the bank of a natural watercourse, lake, or tidewater. 

Riprap: Armoring consisting of randomly placed rock or concrete; used to strengthen an embankment 

or protect it from erosion. 

Ruderal: Weedy vegetation, commonly including or dominated by introduced species, characteristic of 

areas where native vegetation has been disturbed or removed. 

S 

Scenic Corridor: A corridor with landscapes and vistas of high scenic quality. 

Scoping: A process used under both CEQA and NEPA to determine the scope of issues to be addressed 

and to identify the significant issues related to the proposed action or project to be addressed in 

an environmental impact report or environmental impact statement. 

Screenline: An imaginary line across parallel roadways that defines a zone of analysis. 

Section 4(f): Provisions originally enacted as Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act 

of 1966 (23 C.F.R. 771.135) and subsequently codified in 49 U.S.C., Subtitle I, Section 303(c). 

The Section 4(f) provisions address the potential for conflicts between transportation needs and 

the protection of lands for recreational use and resource conservation by regulating the use of 

publicly owned parkland, recreation areas, and historic sites. Specifically, they prohibit the 

Secretary of Transportation from approving any program or project that would require the use of 

any publicly owned land from a public park, recreation area, wildlife or waterfowl refuge, or land 

of an historic site of national significance as determined by the officials having jurisdiction over 

these lands, unless there are no feasible and prudent alternatives to the use of these lands. In 

addition, a proposed program or project must include all possible planning to minimize harm 

resulting from the proposed use. 

Section 6(f): Section 6(f) of Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1964, which prohibits the 

conversion to a non-recreational purpose of property acquired or developed with funds granted 

through the Act without the approval of the National Park Service. Section 6(f) directs the 

Department of the Interior to ensure that replacement lands of equal value (monetary), location, 

and usefulness are provided as conditions to such conversions. Consequently, where such 

conversions of Section 6(f) lands are proposed for transportation projects, replacement lands 

must be provided. 

Sedimentary Rock: Rock resulting from the consolidation of sediment. 

Seiche: Oscillation or “sloshing” of water in a lake, bay, or other enclosed body as a result of landsliding 

or seismic groundshaking. 

Senate Bill 45: Bill that instituted consolidation of various funding programs into the State 

Transportation Improvement Program and increased accountability for programming and 

delivery of STIP projects to the regions around the state and the various Caltrans districts. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 15 Glossary 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 15-13

Sensitivity Analysis: An analysis that assesses how sensitive the outcomes predicted by modeling are 

to changes in different model inputs (assumptions or variables). 

Shadow impact: Shadow impact is the introduction of shadows to a land sensitive to aesthetic 

conditions from a new structure. 

Significant: In CEQA usage, describes an impact that is sufficiently adverse, intense, or prolonged to 

require mitigation. For NEPA usage see 40 CFR 1508.27. 

South Coast Air Quality Management District: The regional regulatory agency with the primary 

responsibility for improving air quality in the South Coast Air Basin. 

State Implementation Plan (SIP): Statewide plan for complying with the federal Clean Air Act. The 

SIP consists of narrative, rules, and agreements that California will use to cleanup polluted areas. 

State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP): A multi-year capital improvement program of 

transportation projects on and off the state highway system, funded with revenues from the 

State Highway Account and other funding sources. STIP programming generally occurs every 

two years. 

Station Location Options: general locations that represent the most likely HST stations based on 

current knowledge, consistent with the objective to serve the state’s major population centers. 

Strike-Slip Fault: A fault along which the dominant direction of movement is parallel to the fault trace 

(the expression of the fault on the ground surface). 

Stub End: A track that terminates at one end. 

Study Corridors: Six linear geographic belts or bands being considered for the HST system that 

connect different parts of the study region. They are distinct in terms of land use, terrain, and 

construction configuration (mix of at-grade, aerial structure, and tunnel sections) and generally 

follow the route of a transportation facility. 

Study Region: Bay Area to Central Valley region encompassing all six study corridors. 

Subsidence: Sinking or lowering of the ground surface. 

Sulfur Oxides (SOx): Sulfur-oxygen compounds that include the important criteria pollutants sulfur 

dioxide (SO2) and sulfur trioxide (SO3). 

T 

Take: As defined in Section 3 of the federal Endangered Species Act, “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, 

shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” 

Tesla: Unit of measure describing the strength of a magnetic field. See also Gauss. 

Tiering: Refers to the practice of addressing general issues in broader environmental impact reports or 

statements such as program-level documents and providing more detailed site-specific 

analyses in subsequent (typically project-level) documents that incorporate the initial broad 

analysis by reference. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 15 Glossary 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 15-14

Total Organic Gases (TOG): A pollutant classification that includes all hydrocarbons, both reactive 

and nonreactive. 

Trainset: A complete unit of rolling stock that makes up a single train. 

Transit-Dependent Population: The population over the age of 16 (workers) who use public 

transportation as a means of traveling to and from work. 

Transit Node: A connection, station, or terminal on a transit network. 

Transportation Demand Management: The operation and coordination of various transportation 

system policies and programs to manage travel demand to make the most efficient and effective 

use of existing transportation services and facilities. 

Transportation System Management: Actions that improve the operation and coordination 

transportation services and facilities to realize the most efficient use of the existing transportation 

system. 

Travel Time: The time spent on the road, in the air, or on a train from a place of origin to a place of 

destination. Total travel time includes the time required to reach a station or an airport, time 

spent waiting for the next scheduled train or flight, time spent getting to the boarding area, time 

spent checking and retrieving luggage, time spent getting a rental car or taxi, as well as time 

spent to reach the final destination. 

Tributary Watercourse: A stream feeding a larger stream or a lake. 

Tsunamis: Waves that travel in the open ocean and are caused by an undersea earthquake, landslide, 

or volcanic activity. 

U 

Unavoidable: In CEQA and NEPA usage, describes an impact that cannot be entirely avoided, reduced, 

or compensated for. 

Unique Farmland: Farmland with soils of lower quality than either prime farmland or farmland of 

statewide importance, but still used for the production of crops. Unique farmlands are usually 

irrigated but may include nonirrigated orchards or vineyards in some of California’s climate zones. 

To quality as unique farmland, a property must have been used for crops at some time during 

the previous 4 years. 

Units of Measure: 

Table of Metric Equivalents 

Length 

Unit Approximate U.S. Equivalent 

1 kilometer 0.62 mile 

1 meter 39.37 inches 

1 centimeter 0.39 inch 

Area 

Unit Approximate U.S. Equivalent 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 15 Glossary 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 15-15

Table of Metric Equivalents 

1 square kilometer 0.3861 square miles 

1 hectare 2.47 acres 

Capacity 

Unit Approximate U.S. Equivalent 

1 liter 1.057 quarts 

Mass and Weight 

Unit Approximate U.S. Equivalent 

1 metric ton 1.102 short tons (2,204.6 pounds) 

1 kilogram 2.2046 pounds 

1 gram 0.035 ounce 

Speed 

Unit Approximate U.S. Equivalent 

1 kilometer per hour 0.621 mile per hour 

Uplift: The action of a portion of the earth’s surface as it rises above adjacent areas. An area of higher 

elevation than surrounding areas; an area that has been uplifted. 

UPRR: Union Pacific Railroad Company. 

V 

Volume to Capacity Ratio (V/C Ratio): The relationship between the amount of traffic a roadway 

was designed to carry and the amount of traffic it actually carries. Related to the level of 

service (LOS) the roadway can provide. 

Very High Speed Steel-Wheel-on-Steel-Rail Train: A train capable of maximum operating speeds 

near 220 mph (350 kph) utilizing steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology. 

Viaduct: A bridge that conveys a road or a railroad over a valley; often constructed of a series of arches 

supported by piers. 

Viewshed: Total visible area from a single observer position, or the total visible area from multiple 

observer positions. Viewsheds are accumulated seen-areas from highways, trails, campgrounds, 

towns, cities, or other viewer locations. Examples include corridor, feature, or basin viewsheds. 

Visual Intactness: The aesthetic integrity of the visual environment and its freedom from encroaching 

elements. 

Visual Resources: The natural and artificial features of a landscape that characterize its form, line, 

texture, and color. 

Visual Unity: The visual coherence and compositional harmony of a landscape when considered as a 

whole. 

Visual Vividness: The visual power or memorability of landscape components as they combine in 

patterns experienced by the viewer. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 15 Glossary 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 15-16

Volt: Standard unit of measure for electrical potential. 

W 

Watershed: The area that contributes water to a drainage system or stream. 

Watt: Standard unit of measure for electrical power. 

Wayside Power: Electrical power provided from the utility grid to the electrified railroad right-of-way at 

convenient locations from the side of the rail tracks or corridor. 

Weir: A small dam that restricts flow in a stream in order to raise water level, or that diverts flow into a 

desired course. 

Wetland: An area that is regularly saturated by surface water or groundwater and is characterized by a 

prevalence of vegetation that is adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. 

Wildlife Corridor: A belt of habitat that is essentially free of physical barriers such as fences, walls, and 

development, and connects two or more larger areas of habitat, allowing wildlife to move 

between physically separate areas. 

X 

Y 

Z 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 16-1

16 INDEX 

A 

Acoustics. See Noise and Vibration, Section 3.4 

Adverse environmental effects, unavoidable. See Environmental consequences. 

Aesthetics and visual resources, Section 3.9 

Affected environment, 3.9-1, 3.9-2 

California Fish and Game Code, 3.9-2, 3.9-6 

Discussion of resource, general, 3.9-3 

Environmental consequences, 3.9-6 

Method of evaluation of impacts, 3.9-1 

Mitigation, strategies for, 3.9-37 

Regulatory requirements, 3.9-1 

Study area defined, 3.9-2 

Subsequent analysis needed, 3.9-38 

Affected environment 

Aesthetics and visual resources, 3.9-2 

Agricultural lands, 3.8-4 

Air quality, 3.3-12 

Biological resources and wetlands, 3.15-12 

Cultural and paleontological resources, 3.12-6 

Energy, 3.5-5 

Geology and soils, 3.13-5 

Hazardous materials and wastes, 3.11-6 

Hydrology and water resources, 3.14-6 

Land use and planning, 3.7-5 

Noise and vibration, 3.4-8 

Parkland, 3.16-3 

Public utilities, 3.10-4 

Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources, 3.16-3 

Traffic and circulation, 3.1-5 

Travel conditions, 3.2-4 

Agricultural lands, Section 3.8 

Affected environment, 3.8-4 

California Fish and Game Code, 3.8-5 

Discussion of resource, general, 3.8-5 

Environmental consequences, 3.8-5 

Method of evaluation of impacts, 3.8-3 

Mitigation, strategies for, 3.8-11 

Regulatory requirements, 3.8-1 

Study area defined, 3.8-4 

Subsequent analysis needed, 3.8-13 

Air Emissions. See Air quality, Section 3.3 

Air quality, Section 3.3 

Affected environment, 3.3-12 

California Fish and Game Code, 3.3-1, 3.3-8, 3.3-9, 3.3-10, 3.3-16, 3.3-17, 3.3-18, 3.3-19, 3.3-20, 3.3-23, 3.3-

24, 3.3-25, 3.3-26, 3.3-29, 3.3-30 

Clean Air Act, 3.3-1, 3.3-2 

Discussion of resource, general, 3.3-12 

Environmental consequences, 3.3-16 

Method of evaluation of impacts, 3.3-7 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 16 Index 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 16-2

Mitigation, strategies for, 3.3-30 

PM10, 3.3-1, 3.3-5, 3.3-6, 3.3-7, 3.3-8, 3.3-11, 3.3-13, 3.3-14, 3.3-15, 3.3-16, 3.3-17, 3.3-18, 3.3-19, 3.3-20, 

3.3-21, 3.3-22, 3.3-23, 3.3-24, 3.3-25, 3.3-26, 3.3-27, 3.3-28, 3.3-29, 3.3-30 

Regulatory requirements, 3.3-1, 3.3-14 

Study area defined, 3.3-12 

Subsequent analysis needed, 3.3-31 

Air quality regulations 

California, 3.3-2 

Federal, See Clean Air Act 

Air travel 

Current demand, 1-5 

Growth, 1-6–8 

Alignment Alternatives, High-Speed Train 

Comparison. See Chapter 3 

Descriptions. See Chapter 2 

Preferred alignments. See Chapter 8 

Alternatives, Chapter 2 

Affected environment, 2-31 

California Fish and Game Code, 2-1, 2-2, 2-7, 2-12, 2-20, 2-21, 2-22, 2-23 

California High-Speed Rail Authority, 2-2, 2-3, 2-4, 2-5, 2-8, 2-9, 2-11, 2-14, 2-15, 2-29, 2-39, 2-43 

Environmental consequences, 2-31 

Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2-11, 2-15, 2-16, 2-20 

Mitigation, strategies for, 2-31 

Notice of Intent (NOI), 2-10, 2-11 

Notice of Preparation (NOP), 2-10, 2-11 

San Francisco Regional Rail Plan, 2-15, 2-16, 2-31 

Areas of known controversy, S-10 

B 

Background. See Chapter 1. 

Biological resources and wetlands, Section 3.15 

Affected environment, 3.15-13 

Clean Water Act, 3.15-2 

Discussion of resource, general, 3.15-13 

Environmental consequences, 3.15-26 

Method of evaluation of impacts, 3.15-8 

Mitigation, strategies for, 3.15-67 

Notice of Intent (NOI), 3.15-3 

Regulatory requirements, 3.15-1 

Study area defined, 3.15-13 

C 

California Endangered Species Act, 3.15-1, 3.15-5 

California Fish and Game Code, 3.15-5, 3.15-6, 3.15-11, 3.15-12 

California High-Speed Rail Authority, S-1, 1-1, 12-1 

Circulation. See Traffic and circulation, Section 3.1 

Clean Air Act, 1-13 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 16 Index 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 16-3

Clean Water Act, 1-3 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 3.11-2 

Construction Methods and Impacts, Section 3.18 

Construction method approach, 3.18-1 

High-Speed Train Alignment Alternatives, 3.18-4 

Corridor. See Study corridor 

Costs and Operation, Chapter 4 

California Fish and Game Code, 4-1 

California High-Speed Rail Authority, 4-21 

Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 4-14 

Cultural Resources and Paleontological Resources, Section 3.12 

Affected environment, 3.12-6 

California Fish and Game Code, 3.12-11 

Environmental consequences, 3.12-11 

Method of evaluation of impacts, 3.12-3 

Mitigation, strategies for, 3.12-8, 3.12-26 

Native American consultation, 3.12-10 

Regulatory requirements, 3.12-1 

Study area defined, 3.12-6 

Subsequent analysis needed, 3.12-26, 3.12-30 

Cumulative Anaylsis, Section 3.17 

Affected environment, 3.17-1 

California Fish and Game Code, 3.17-5, 3.17-13, 3.17-14, 3.17-15, 3.17-16, 3.17-17, 3.17-18, 3.17-19, 3.17-20, 

3.17-21, 3.17-22, 3.17-23, 3.17-24, 3.17-26, 3.17-27 

Clean Water Act, 3.17-24, 3.17-25, 3.17-36 

Environmental consequences, 3.17-1 

Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 3.17-4, 3.17-5, 3.17-8, 3.17-11, 3.17-18 

Mitigation, strategies for, 3.17-1, 3.17-28 

PM10, 3.17-14, 3.17-15 

Regulatory requirements, 3.17-1 

San Francisco Regional Rail Plan, 3.17-4, 3.17-8, 3.17-9 

Streambed Alteration Agreement, 3.17-36, 3.17-38 

D 

Delay, travel. See Reliability 

Development of project alternatives. See Alternatives 

Dust. See PM10 

E 

Earthquake hazards. See Section 3.13 

Economic Growth, Chapter 5 

Affected environment, 5-1 

California Fish and Game Code, 5-5, 5-6, 5-7, 5-8, 5-9, 5-10, 5-13, 5-14, 5-17, 5-18, 5-19, 5-20, 5-21, 5-22, 5-

23, 5-24, 5-25, 5-27, 5-28, 5-29, 5-30, 5-31, 5-32, 5-33, 5-34, 5-35 

California High-Speed Rail Authority, 5-2, 5-4, 5-6, 5-13, 5-33, 5-34, 5-35 

Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 5-2, 5-10, 5-16 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 16 Index 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 16-4

Electromagnetic Fields and Electromagnetic Interference (EMF/EMI), Section 3.6 

Environmental consequences, 3.6-3 

Mitigation, strategies for, 3.6-5 

Regulatory requirements, 3.6-1 

Subsequent analysis needed, 3.6-5 

Endangered Species Act. See California Endangered Species Act. 

Energy, Section 3.5 

Affected environment, 3.5-5 

California Fish and Game Code, 3.5-2, 3.5-3, 3.5-4, 3.5-12, 3.5-13, 3.5-15, 3.5-17, 3.5-18, 3.5-19 

California High-Speed Rail Authority, 3.5-14 

Discussion of resource, general, 3.5-6 

Environmental consequences, 3.5-12 

Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 3.5-3, 3.5-5 

Mitigation, strategies for, 3.5-18 

Regulatory requirements, 3.5-1 

Study area defined, 3.5-5 

Subsequent analysis needed, 3.5-19 

Environmental conditions. See Affected environment. 

Environmental consequences 

Aesthetics and visual resources, 3.9-2 

Agricultural lands, 3.8-4 

Air quality, 3.3-12 

Biological resources and wetlands, 3.15-12 

Cultural and paleontological resources, 3.12-6 

Energy, 3.5-5 

Geology and soils, 3.13-5 

Hazardous materials and wastes, 3.11-6 

Hydrology and water resources, 3.14-6 

Land use and planning, 3.7-5 

Noise and vibration, 3.4-8 

Parkland, 3.16-3 

Public utilities, 3.10-4 

Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources, 3.16-3 

Traffic and circulation, 3.1-5 

Travel conditions, 3.2-4 

Environmental effects. See Environmental consequences 

Environmental impacts. See Environmental consequences 

Environmental justice. See Section 3.7 

Environmental setting. See Affected Environment 

F 

Federal Clean Water Act. See Clean Water Act 

Fish and Game Code. See California Fish and Game Code 

Funding. See Project funding 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 16 Index 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 16-5

G 

Geology and Soils, Section 3.13 

Affected environment, 3.13-5 

California Fish and Game Code, 3.13-8 

Discussion of resource, general, 3.13-6 

Environmental consequences, 3.13-8 

Method of evaluation of impacts, 3.13-2, 3.13-5, 3.13-24 

Mitigation, strategies for, 3.13-21 

Regulatory requirements, 3.13-1 

Study area defined, 3.13-5 

Subsequent analysis needed, 3.13-24 

H 

Hazardous Materials and Wastes, Section 3.11 

Affected environment, 3.11-7 

California Fish and Game Code, 3.11-1, 3.11-5, 3.11-7, 3.11-9 

Clean Air Act, 3.11-4 

Discussion of resource, general, 3.11-7 

Environmental consequences, 3.11-8 

Mitigation, strategies for, 3.11-16 

Regulatory requirements, 3.11-2 

Study area defined, 3.11-7 

Subsequent analysis needed, 3.11-17 

Hazardous Materials regulations 

Federal, 3.11-1_3 

State, 3.11-3 

Hazardous waste. See Hazardous materials and wastes, Section 3.11 

High-Speed Rail Authority. See California High-Speed Rail Authority 

High-Speed Train station area development. See Chapter 6 

High-Speed Train system 

Alternatives considered, S-4 

HST Alignment Alternatives. See Alignment Alternatives, High-Speed Train 

HST Network Alternatives. See Network Alternatives, High-Speed Train 

Hydrology and Water Resources, Section 3.14 

Affected environment, 3.14-6 

California Fish and Game Code, 3.14-4, 3.14-13 

Clean Water Act, 3.14-1, 3.14-2, 3.14-3, 3.14-51 

Environmental consequences, 3.14-13 

Mitigation, strategies for, 3.14-51 

Notice of Intent (NOI), 3.14-1 

Regulatory requirements, 3.14-1 

Streambed Alteration Agreement, 3.14-52 

Study area defined, 3.14-6 

I 

Impacts. See Environmental consequences 

Inclement weather, 3.2-1, 3.2-4, 3.2-13_14, 3.2-22. See also Reliability 

Inhalable particulate matter. See PM10 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 16 Index 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 16-6

Intercity transportation 

Defined, 1-1 

System capacity, 1-5_6 

Issues of known controversy. See Areas of known controversy 

K 

Known controversy. See Areas of known controversy 

L 

Level of Service, 3.1-1, 3.1-2, 3.1-4 

Land Use and Planning, Section 3.7 

Affected environment, 3.7-5 

California Fish and Game Code, 3.7-1, 3.7-2, 3.7-19 

Environmental consequences, 3.7-19 

Mitigation, strategies for, 3.7-42 

Regulatory requirements, 3.7-1 

Study area defined, 3.7-5 

Subsequent analysis needed, 3.7-44 

LOS. See Level of Service 

M 

Meetings, public and agency. See Chapter 10 

Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 1-3, 11-3, 13-6 

Mitigation, strategies for. See individual resource areas 

N 

National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106, 3.12-2 

Native American consultation, 3.12-10 

Need for project 

Regional, 1-14 

Statewide, 1-5 

Network and Alignment Alternatives Comparisons, Chapter 7 

Affected environment, 7-1, 7-84 

California Fish and Game Code, 7-2 

California High-Speed Rail Authority, 7-3 

Environmental consequences, 7-1, 7-84 

Mitigation, strategies for, 7-1, 7-84 

No Action Alternative. See No Project Alternative 

No Project Alternative, 2-2, 2-19 

NOI. See Notice of intent 

Noise and Vibration, Section 3.4 

Affected environment, 3.4-8 

California Fish and Game Code, 3.4-12 

California High-Speed Rail Authority, 3.4-2, 3.4-3, 3.4-4, 3.4-5 

Discussion of resource, general, 3.4-8 

Environmental consequences, 3.4-3, 3.4-12 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 16 Index 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 16-7

Method of evaluation of impacts, 3.4-2 

Mitigation, strategies for, 3.4-23 

Regulatory requirements, 3.4-1 

Study area defined, 3.4-8 

Subsequent analysis needed, 3.4-27 

Notice of intent, 2-10, 10-2, 10-4 

Notice of preparation, 2-10, 10-2, 10-4 

NOP. See Notice of preparation 

O 

Objectives. See Project objectives 

Organization of this document 

Chapter 2, 2-2 

Chapter 3, 3-2 

P 

Paleontological resources. See Cultural and paleontological resources, Section 3.12 

Parklands. See Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources, Section 3.16 

Particulate matter. See PM10 

Particulates. See PM10 

Planning. See Land use and planning, Section 3.7 

PM10, 3.3-1, 3.17-13, 9-2 

Population and housing. See Section 3.7 

Project objectives, 1-4 

Projected ridership 1-1, 1-8, 1-14 

Projected travel demand, 1-5, 1-6, 1-8 

Public services. See Public utilities 

Preferred Alignment Alternatives, Chapter 8 

Clean Water Act, 8-3 

Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 8-3, 8-5, 8-6, 8-7, 8-8, 8-9, 8-11, 8-12, 8-13, 8-14, 8-15, 8-16, 8-18, 

8-19, 8-25, 8-26 

San Francisco Regional Rail Plan, 8-8, 8-9, 8-11, 8-14, 8-15, 8-25 

Public and Agency Involvement, Chapter 10 

Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 10-5, 10-6, 10-7, 10-12 

Notice of Intent (NOI), 10-2, 10-4 

Notice of Preparation (NOP), 10-2, 10-4 

San Francisco Regional Rail Plan, 10-2, 10-4, 10-5, 10-6, 10-12 

Public Utilities, Section 3.10 

Affected environment, 3.10-4 

California Fish and Game Code, 3.10-5 

Environmental consequences, 3.10-5 

Method of evaluation of impacts, 3.10-2 

Mitigation, strategies for, 3.10-10 

Regulatory requirements, 3.10-1 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 16 Index 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 16-8

Study area defined, 3.10-4 

Subsequent analysis needed, 3.10-11 

Purpose of and Need for, 1-4 

R 

Reliability 

Defined, 1-9, 3.2-1, 

Of high-speed train systems, 3.2-12 

S 

San Francisco Regional Rail Plan, 1-3, 

2-15, 2-16, 2-31, 

3.17-4, 3.17-8, 3.17-9, 

8-8, 8-9, 8-11, 8-14, 8-15, 8-25 

Scoping. See Chapter 10. 

Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources, Section 3.16 

Affected environment, 3.16-3 

California Fish and Game Code, 3.16-5 

Environmental consequences, 3.16-5 

Method of evaluation of impacts, 3.16-2 

Mitigation, strategies for, 3.16-20 

Regulatory requirements, 3.16-1 

Subsequent analysis needed, 3.16-21 

Seismic hazards. See Section 3.13 

Seismicity. See Section 3.13 

Social environment. See Section 3.7 

Socioeconomics. See Section 3.7 

Soils. See Geology and soils, Section 3.13 

Station Area Development, Chapter 6 

California High-Speed Rail Authority, 6-2 

Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 6-3, 6-4 

Streambed Alteration Agreement, 3.14-51 

Study corridors 

Defined, 2-1. 2-3 

Described, 2-38–-42 

Study region, 2-1 

Superfund Act. See Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 16 Index 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 16-9

T 

Traffic and circulation, Section 3.1 

Affected environment, 3.1-5, 3.1-24 

California Fish and Game Code, 3.1-1, 3.1-4, 3.1-23, 3.1-24, 3.1-25, 3.1-26, 3.1-28, 3.1-29, 3.1-31, 3.1-32, 3.1-

33, 3.1-34, 3.1-36, 3.1-37, 3.1-38 

Environmental consequences, 3.1-6, 3.1-23, 3.1-38 

Method of evaluation of impacts, 3.1-1 

Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 3.1-25, 3.1-26 

Mitigation, strategies for, 3.1-38 

Regulatory requirements, 3.1-1 

Subsequent analysis needed, 3.1-40 

Transportation conformity, 1-13 

Travel conditions, Section 3.2 

Affected environment, 3.2-4 

California Fish and Game Code, 3.2-1, 3.2-2, 3.2-6, 3.2-7, 3.2-8, 3.2-10, 3.2-18, 3.2-22, 3.2-23, 3.2-26, 3.2-28, 

3.2-31 

Discussion of resource, general, 3.2-4 

Environmental consequences, 3.2-6 

Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 3.2-4, 3.2-6, 3.2-9, 3.2-24, 3.2-29 

Study area defined, 3.2-4 

Travel time 

Defined, 1-8 

Between city pairs, estimated air, 1-9 

conventional rail, 1-9 

auto, 1-9 

Delays. See Reliability 

Transportation. See Traffic and circulation, Section 3.1 

U 

Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts, Chapter 9 

California Fish and Game Code, 9-1, 9-2, 9-3, 9-5, 9-6 

PM10, 9-2, 9-7, 9-12 

V 

Vibration. See Noise and vibration, Section 3.4 

Visual resources. See Aesthetics and visual resources, Section 3.9 

W 

Weather. See Inclement weather 

Wetlands. See Hydrology and water resources, Section 3.14 

μT microAB Asseac acre AC AlamACE AltamACGIH Ame

GoveHygie

ACM AsbeADL aeriaAFB Air FANSI/IEEE Ame

InstitElect

APE area ASTM Ame

Mate

Authority Califo

Auth

AWP AnnuBA bioloBART Bay ABCDC Bay C

Deve

Bcf billioBcm millioBMP best BO bioloBRMP Biolo

Plans 

Btu BritisC.C.R. CalifoCAA Clean 

CAFÉ CorpCalEPA Califo

Prote

Cal-ISO Califo

Oper

Caltrans Califo

Tran

CARB CalifoCAT CereCCA chromCCAA Califo

CCC CalifoCCJPA Capit

Auth

CDF Califo

and 

CDFG Califo

Gam
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 17 Acronyms and Abbreviations 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Page 17-2

EMI electromagnetic interference EMUs electric multiple units EO Executive Order EPA U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency 

EPIC Environmental Protection 

Indicators for California 

ESA federal Endangered Species Act 

ESAs Environmentally Sensitive Areas FAA Federal Aviation Administration FARS Fatality Analysis Reporting System FCC Federal Communications 

Commission 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

FHWA Federal Highway Administration FIRE finance, insurance, and real 

estate 

FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Maps FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring 

Program 

FPPA Farmland Protection Policy Act FR Federal Register FRA Federal Railroad Administration ft feet FTA Federal Transit Administration GEA Grassland Ecological Area General Construction General Permit for Construction  Permit Activities general WDRs general waste discharge 

requirements 

GIS geographic information systems GPI greatest potential impacts per 

region 

GSP gross state product GWh gigawatt-hours ha hectare HABS Historic American Building Survey HAER Historic American Engineering 

Record 

HASP Health and Safety Plan HC hydrocarbons HCP Habitat Conservation Plan HOVs high-occupancy vehicles 

HST high-speed train Hz hertz I-5 Interstate 5 ICE InterCity Express ICES International Committee on 

Electromagnetic Safety 

ICNIRP International Commission on NonIonizing Radiation protection in inch IOU investor-owned utility ISAC Invasive Species Advisory 

Committee 

ISTEA Intermodal Surface 

Transportation Efficiency Act 

ITP incidental take permit ITS intelligent transportation system JPB Joint Powers Board km per hour kph km kilometers 

kpl kilometers per liter kV kilovolt LAUS Los Angeles Union Station LAVTA Livermore Amador Valley Transit 

Authority 

LBP lead-based paint LCMMP Land Cover Mapping and 

Monitoring Program 

LCP local coastal program Ldn Day-Night Sound Level LEDPA least environmentally damaging 

practicable alternative 

Leq Equivalent Sound Level LESA Land Evaluation and Site 

Assessment 

LEV low emission vehicle LF low frequency Lmax Maximum Sound Level LOS level of service LPI least potential impacts region 

LTO landing and take-off 

LUFT Leaking Underground Fuel Tank 

LUST Leaking Underground Storage 

Tank 

m meters MCAG Merced County Association of 

Governments 

MCE Merced Municipal/Macready Field MF magnetic field mG milligauss mi mile MMBTUs million British thermal units MOD Modesto City-County-Harry Sham 

Field 

MOU memorandum of understanding 

mpg miles per gallon 

mph miles per hour MPOs Metropolitan Planning 

Organizations 

MST Monterey-Salinas Transit 

MTC Metropolitan Transportation 

Commission 

Muni Municipal Railway MW megawatts 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

NAHC Native American Heritage 

Commission 

NCCP natural community conservation 

plan 

NCP National Contingency Plan NCRP National Council on Radiation 
Bay Area to Central Valley H

Prote

NCRS Natu

Serv

NEC NorthNEPA NatioNFIP NatioNHPA NatioNHRP Natio

Place

NISC NatioNo Project No PNO nitric NO2 nitroNOA natuNOAA Natio

Adm

NOI noticNOP noticNOx oxide

NPDES Natio

Elimi

NPL NatioNRCS Natu

Serv

NRHP Natio

Place

NWI NatioNWPs natioO&M operO3 ozonOAG Offic

OAK OaklOEHHA Offic

Haza

OSHA/CalOSHA feder

Safet

P.L. PubliPA progPb lead PCBs polycPCP pentPKT pass

Plan San 

Rail P

PM10 parti

diam

PM2.5 parti

diam

PMT passPRBO Point Program EIR/EIS Bay A

Prog

RCRA Reso

Reco

RF radioRM2 RegioROG reactROTA River

Auth
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 17 Acronyms and Abbreviations 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Page 17-4

TDS total dissolved solids TGV Train à Grande Vitesse TMDLs total maximum daily loads TOD transit-oriented design 

TOG total organic gases TSM Transportation System 

Management 

UPRR Union Pacific Railroad USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USFWS U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey UST underground storage tank V/C volume-to-capacity V/m volts per meter VHS very high-speed VKT vehicle kilometers of travel VLF very low frequency VMT vehicle miles of travel VOCs volatile organic compounds WHEELS Livermore Amador Valley Transit 

Authority